Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DOVER HARBOUR [MONEY]

Considered in Committee.

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Dover Harbour Board to construct new works and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to enable the Admiralty and the Minister of Transport to reimburse to the Dover Harbour Board all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred by the said Board in the exercise by the said Board of powers in relation to certain vessels sunk, stranded or abandoned in Dover Harbour."—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Widows' Sons

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider such alteration in registration for National Service which will exempt the only son of a widow.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): No, Sir. The classes of persons not liable to be called up for service are specified in the National Service Act, 1948, and I have no power to add to them.

Dr. Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this type of provision does exist in many other countries and that the numbers must necessarily be very few? Would he not consider the matter again

and see whether he could give this type of exemption?

Mr. Isaacs: I can only say that this matter was discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill, in May, 1947, and was rejected by the Committee.

Mr. John MacLeod: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in certain remote areas of the Highlands, where there are very few communications, such a son is of great value to the widow? Will he look sympathetically into any cases brought to his notice?

Mr. Isaacs: Certainly, and I would be glad to draw attention, in any such cases, to the fact that there is provision for assistance where hardship has been caused.

Building Trade Apprentices

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in order to prevent the loss to the building trade of trained men, he will make arrangements for building trade apprentices to have the opportunity of doing their National Service in the Service and in that branch of that Service wherein they are most likely to keep contact with the work for which they are trained.

Mr. Isaacs: General arrangements on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend already exist, but the number of building trade workers at present required in the Forces for work in their trade capacity is so limited that many of the men becoming available for call-up must be otherwise employed. I do not, however, accept the suggestion that such men would necessarily be lost to the building industry.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is it not possible for my right hon. Friend to arrange for a transfer from one service to another if it is found that a man can thereby be kept more closely in contact with work for which he is trained?

Mr. Isaacs: Even if that were possible, we could not restrict it to the building trade. We should find ourselves pressed by demands for all kinds of tradesmen to be shifted from one Service to another.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that as we are assured that housing is priority number one in Scotland, this would greatly help to solve our problems?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Disabled Persons, Stoke-on-Trent

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women are registered as disabled in Stoke-on-Trent; and of these how many are so disabled and unemployed as a result of pneumoconiosis.

Mr. Isaacs: Nine thousand and forty-seven persons (8,300 men and 747 women) were registered as disabled at the four employment exchanges in the Stoke-on-Trent area on 17th April, 1950; and of these 276 men and two women were registered as disabled by pneumoconiosis, including silicosis. Of those disabled by pneumoconiosis, the number unemployed was 30. They were all men, and 23 of them were coalminers.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women are employed in Stoke-on-Trent in Remploy factories, giving the numbers in each case, and the type of disablement the workers suffer from.

Mr. Isaacs: One hundred and seventy-one men and 11 women are employed in Remploy factories in the Stoke-on-Trent area. I am sending my hon. Friend the further particulars for which he asks.

Dr. Stross: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether he is aware that in the Stoke-on-Trent area the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis is higher than in most places in the country? Would he look with sympathy on the proposition that we require a sheltered industry for those who suffer from this disease?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, such sheltered industry is provided in one or two other places in the country, and I should be glad to look into any cases my hon. Friend sends to me.

Elderly Persons

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to facilitate the employment of persons over 60 years of age.

Mr. Isaacs: I have already raised this matter with the representative bodies in industry, who have promised to do all that they can to ensure that the Government's

policy of making the fullest possible use of older persons is known and that there is co-operation in carrying it out. The local offices of the Ministry have been instructed to take every opportunity of persuading employers to consider older men on their merits. I hope that by this means a change in outlook on the part of individual employers will be brought about.

Sir H. Williams: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why the Foreign Office are automatically sacking people as soon as they reach the age of 65?

Mr. Isaacs: It would have been much more reasonable if the hon. Gentleman had put that question down, instead of a general Question like this, and then I would have tried to answer it.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the Minister not aware that his own Department is one of the worst sinners in turning off very large numbers of men of 55 and over?

Mr. Isaacs: We are by no means sinners in this respect, since we are carrying out the desires of the House in reducing our staff when there is no longer any need for their services. We have to take all factors into consideration. When there are to be discharges we discharge those in the older groups, when they are pensionable, in preference to others.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the Minister aware that his Department are filling a number of jobs in certain towns with young new entrants, whereas some of the older people could quite reasonably well continue to perform them?

Mr. Isaacs: It is the same in this business as in any other business. One has to provide for apprenticeship for future employment.

Mr. Hudson: Why does the right hon. Gentleman expect a higher standard from private industry than he sets in his own Department?

Mr. Isaacs: I resent that; we do not expect a higher standard. We are doing our best to get outside industries to do as well as we are doing in the Government.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made in this matter since it was


debated last November, particularly in the case of those employing men over 40 years of age?

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. and gallant Member will put that question down I will try to give him full information.

Tin Miners, Cornwall

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Labour how many underground workers were employed in Cornish tin mines during each of the last five years.

Mr. Isaacs: At July, 1948, the latest date for which figures are available, the estimated total number of employees in the tin-mining industry in Cornwall was 820. This figure includes all persons employed by tin-mining firms, and separate figures of underground workers are not available. Precisely comparable figures cannot be given for earlier years but such figures as are available show that there was a slight drop between 1946 and 1948.

Mr. Hayman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether his Department is able, to satisfy the demand for underground workers in the tin mines and, if not, whether he thinks higher wages would be a sufficient inducement to attract young men into the industry?

Mr. Isaacs: I am sure that higher wages would be an inducement to attract people anywhere, but I have no knowledge of any complaint from the area that they are unable to obtain labour.

Wales

Mr. William Elwyn Jones: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of persons registered as unemployed in the employment exchanges at Pen-maenmawr, Conway and Llandudno at the latest available date.

Mr. Isaacs: At 12th June, the numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of the Penmaenmawr, Conway and Llandudno employment exchanges were 76, 53 and 81 respectively.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: On a point of order. In view of the large number of Questions on the Order Paper today, Sir, may I ask could not such Questions as this be put down for written and not oral answer? After all, they are purely statistical.

Mr. Speaker: I am bound to leave that to the judgment of the individual

Member. If there are any points other than a local point, he is justified in asking for an oral answer, but, on a purely local question asking for figures, it would save a lot of time if the Question could be put down for non-oral answer.

Hull and Bridlington

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Labour how many people were unemployed in the boroughs of Hull and Bridlington on 30th April, 1950; what proportion these figures were of the respective insured populations; and how they compare with the unemployment figure throughout the country on that date.

Mr. Isaacs: Figures are not available for 30th April, but at 15th May the numbers registered as unemployed at the Hull and Bridlington employment exchanges were 4,965 and 362, respectively, representing about 4 per cent. of the insured population in each case. The corresponding percentage for Great Britain was 1½.

Vocational Training

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Minister of Labour why vocational training under the Disabled Persons Scheme is refused to those over 40 years of age.

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There is no upper age limit for vocational training under the Disabled Persons Training Scheme and disabled persons over 40 years of age are accepted for training provided that they are otherwise suitable for training in a trade in which there are vacancies.

Sir H. Williams: Does that apply to persons over 60?

Mr. Watkinson: If I send the Minister particulars of a case in which a man of 41 has been refused training, will he give it sympathetic consideration?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, and I shall be very disappointed if I find that it was for any reason other than that which I set out in my answer.

Friendly Society, Glasgow (Staff)

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Minister of Labour if he has considered the communication received from the Guild of Insurance Officials regarding the dismissal


of members of the staff of the City of Glasgow Friendly Society; and what answer he has made to it.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir; and I am considering what action I can usefully take in the matter.

Mr. Carmichael: Would my right hon. Friend, because of his very kind disposition, make special representation in view of the fact that some members of this management committee are on many Government boards and one was a responsible member of the Cabinet during the war?

Fishermen, Cornwall

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to arrest the decline in the number of young men engaged in Cornish sea fisheries and to stimulate recruitment.

Mr. Isaacs: I have no power to prevent young men leaving the Cornish sea fisheries. With regard to recruitment, my local offices will give all possible assistance to owners of fishing boats who notify vacancies.

Mr. Gerald Howard: Can the Minister give publicity to help recruitment in this matter, as I have suggested to him?

Mr. Isaacs: I doubt whether it is necessary at the moment because in Cornwall, at the June count, there were 99 unemployed fishermen, 25 at Looe, 36 at St. Austell and 27 at St. Ives. There is, therefore, unemployment among fishermen there at the moment.

Mr. Hayman: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that unemployment in the inshore fishing industry can vary almost from day to day? What may have happened on one day last week may not apply this week. Might I further remind my right hon. Friend that in the last census only 53 out of 862 men were under 25 years of age?

Mr. Isaacs: I have no information on that point but, directing my answer to the Question, I said that we would give all possible assistance in notifying vacancies. There are, however, unemployed men there awaiting work.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Physiotherapists

Lieut. - Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now say when the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the qualifications required by physiotherapists employed under the National Health Service will be completed; and whether it is intended to publish this report.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): The report of the committee should be available within the next few months. I will consider the question of publication when the report has been received.

Fluorine Fumes (Factories)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an order similar to No. 364, 1950, which only applies to England so that the harmful discharge of fluorine fumes will be prohibited or corrected from factories in Scotland.

Mr. McNeil: I cannot make a comparable Order to the one referred to, but I am considering whether further legislation upon this subject is necessary.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the people of Fort William, and the trees and cattle there, are being sufficiently protected against the fumes of the British Aluminium Company?

Mr. McNeil: I am quite satisfied that the best public health requirements have been met in relation to housing and the emission of these fumes. I should, therefore, presume that the cattle are reasonably all right.

Major McCallum: Does the Minister realise that only last week the fumes emitted by this factory were still sufficient to cause withering and damage to trees and plants, so presumably they are still injurious to human beings?

Mr. McNeil: I do not pretend that this situation has not worried me, but I must point out that the public health requirements have been met in relation to housing. That, I think, must be my primary concern.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman issue a similar Order?

Mr. McNeil: Because the appropriate Act does not permit me to do so.

Teachers' Salaries

Lieut. - Commander Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make any statement in regard to an increase in the salaries of teachers.

Mr. McNeil: The present salaries regulations are due to expire on 31st March, 1951. Negotiations in the National Joint Council as to the scales to be recommended to me for new regulations are not yet concluded. In these circumstances I cannot make any statement about an increase in teachers' salaries.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be able to make a statement during the Debate which is to take place on Scottish Education Estimates?

Mr. McNeil: I do not know that a date has been fixed for the Debate on education. It is unlikely that I shall be in possession of the report from the committee within the next few weeks.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Is the Minister aware that many married Scottish school-masters are quite unable properly to maintain themselves and their families at present? Does he not realise that he is lowering the status of the profession by not dealing with this as a matter of the greatest urgency?

Mr. McNeil: I am sure that the hon. Member is also aware that until I receive the recommendations of the National Joint Council, it would be verging on the improper for me to comment on the scales at all.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the great concern of all hon. Members should be for the lower paid teachers but, more particularly, for the lower paid miners—those receiving less than £5 a week?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Perhaps it may clear the right hon. Gentleman's mind for this report if I say that he should appreciate that unless he does something to improve the conditions

and salaries of teachers our whole educational system is in imminent danger of collapse.

Mr. McNeil: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member's opinions are very weighty, but I repeat that I prefer to await the recommendations of the National Joint Council.

Cement Supplies

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that local authorities are likely to be unable to secure completion of their housing contracts because of insufficient supplies of cement; and what steps he is taking to remedy this.

Mr. McNeil: I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply given on 19th June by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while cement is in short supply at 78s. a ton in Glasgow it can be got comparatively easily at £7 14s. 9d. a ton? Will he inquire why firms selling at this price can still get licences to import?

Mr. McNeil: I think, with great respect, that my hon. Friend's statement is not quite accurate. I have been inquiring most closely into this subject.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Glasgow Corporations are loading some more cement from Germany this week, and that because of that, and only because of that, they are able to carry on their building?

Mr. McNeil: I am aware that they are importing this cement, and I am glad they are doing so, but it is quite wrong to say that it is only with that cement that they are proceeding with their building. That is not so. It is a supplementary load, for which we are all very grateful.

Mr. J. J. Robertson: Can my right hon. Friend say what is being done for the immediate needs of Berwickshire?

Mr. McNeil: Yes, I am very glad to say that the Minister of Works, in collaboration with me, is arranging that cement should be shipped direct from London to Berwick.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that weekly


supplies are in excess of the amount estimated by the Ministry of Works? If there is any shortage at all it is the Government's fault.

Mr. McNeil: I cannot follow that question. I am unaware that any housing scheme has been stopped for lack of cement. Therefore, our cement budgeting cannot have been too wide of the mark.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have the name of a very large firm in Glasgow which could only get cement in the city at the figure I have given? I shall give him the name of that firm privately after Questions.

Mr. McNeil: I shall be delighted at this co-operation, but my recollection of the assertion of my hon. Friend is that he said that cement was easily obtainable at that figure. That is not so.

Water Supplies

Mr. J. J. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the first phase of the Berwickshire County Water Scheme is likely to be completed; when it is proposed to start the remaining phases; and if, in view of the urgent need for an adequate domestic water supply in the area, he will now agree to the whole scheme being proceeded with immediately.

Mr. McNeil: It is hoped that the first phase of the Berwickshire watch water scheme will be completed by mid-1952, and that thereafter work on the Earnscleugh water scheme and the second phase of the watch water scheme will proceed concurrently,

Mr. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this delay is seriously holding up the agricultural and industrial development of that area; and cannot further speedy action be taken to complete the whole scheme quickly?

Mr. McNeil: I understand my hon. Friend's preoccupation, but I should remind him that the authorisation for Berwickshire already represents 6 per cent. of the total water and drainage schemes for all Scotland.

Mr. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest figures of the number of new houses approved but not begun owing to lack of water, for agricultural workers and general needs respectively, since 1945, in

the county of Berwick, including the burghs.

Mr. McNeil: No houses for which tenders have been approved are at present being held up for lack of water.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what Highland schemes of water supply have received grants of 85 per cent.

Mr. McNeil: As the list of schemes is necessarily lengthy I propose, with permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that so far as the seven crofter counties are concerned, the longer the list is the better?

Following is the information:


RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE ACT, 1944


HIGHLAND COUNTIES


Schemes on which grant is payable at 85 per cent.


County
Name of Scheme


Argyll
Campbeltown, Stewarton, Drumlemble, Machrihanish (part)



Ellenabeich



Inellan—Buthkollidar



Balvicar



Lochaline



Muasdale (part)



Kilmichael Glassary



Cairndow



Portnahaven and Port Wemyss



Carradale


Caithness
Loch Calder Regional



Stroma



Daliburgh (South Uist)


Inverness
Balivanich



Boat of Garten



Nethybridge



Calcabock


Orkney
Kirbister



Hoy



Boardhouse



Burn of Woodwick


Ross and Cromarty
Eye Peninsula (Lewis)



Four Lewis Groups



Easter Ross



Gairloch



Nostie



Ullapool



Ardgay


Sutherland
Helmsdale



Loth and Portgower



MeIness



Loch Clash Pier


Zetland
Whalsay



Dunrossness and Gulberwick



Unst



Burra

Housing

Mr. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is likely


that housebuilding will be resumed at Earlston, Berwickshire, to house the 200 families at present requiring accommodation in that area.

Mr. McNeil: Further housing at Earlston depends on the progress of the Earnscleugh water scheme which, under present circumstances, is expected to begin in 1952.

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if compensation is to be paid to tenants of Cruden houses in respect of inconvenience caused and damage to furniture resulting from the fire-proofing of these houses.

Mr. McNeil: I cannot usefully add anything to the reply given on 23rd May to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson).

Mr. Snadden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at any rate in my constituency, people had a complete invasion of workmen lasting over a week? When furniture is damaged is it not the responsibility of his Department to make some compensatory payment?

Mr. McNeil: My Department made the most careful investigations and issued a circular giving the scheme of work which, I think, ought to have prevented any unlooked for damage. It may not be the responsibility of the Department; it may be the responsibility of a contractor.

Villages (Removal)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in regard to the removal of villages in Scotland which his local planning officers may consider advisable; and whether the views of the residents in such villages will be taken into account before any action is taken or publicity given to his intentions.

Mr. McNeil: This is primarily a subject for the county councils concerned, and I should naturally be greatly influenced by their views, although, of course, I must also consider the views of any residents who might be affected by a proposal.

Sir T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable distress was caused to the people of Monkton in Ayrshire the other day by a premature report of its removal? Will he say something now to relieve that anxiety?

Mr. McNeil: Happily, I am not at all concerned with such publications, premature or otherwise. I must repeat that this is a subject primarily for the county councils, but I think my views are quite well known—that I am not desirous of liquidating lively and distinct communities like villages.

Crofter Counties (Electricity Supplies)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much power from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's schemes has been used for industry in the seven crofter counties.

Mr. McNeil: The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board at present supply industrial consumers in the seven crofter counties at the rate of 12 million units annually.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the seven crofter counties should have the first call on the power from hydroelectric schemes for industry?

Mr. McNeil: I am quite aware of the statutory provisions in regard to those counties, but I should emphasise that no industrial undertaking is held up or operating short of power.

Hand and Power Woven Tweeds

Mr. J. MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the scheme for distinguishing between hand-woven and power-woven tweed submitted to him by the Highland and Islands Advisory Panel.

Mr. McNeil: I am re-examining this, question, but I cannot pretend that I am optimistic about the outcome.

Mr. MacLeod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Treasury admitted in the last Parliament that it was just through lack of distinction between them that they refused to reduce the Purchase Tax—the lack of distinction in the difference between hand-woven and power-woven tweed? Is he aware that unless that distinction is possible, as suggested by this report, the industry, which is vital to the small producers in the Highlands, will be virtually killed?

Mr. McNeil: I know the doubts and the fears, and the hon. Gentleman knows better than most people that this is a complex subject upon which no one view has been representative.

Mr. Maclay: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if a decision is not reached, and soon, this industry will probably disappear altogether? It is a matter of the gravest urgency.

Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that apparently it has been found possible to distinguish between utility and non-utility tweeds though made on the same loom and of the same materials? Could not some distinction be made?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think the distinction is nearly so easy.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is it not the case that for many years an orb mark has been approved and recognised by the Board of Trade, which distinguishes handwoven Harris tweed from any other? Why has not that been found acceptable to the Treasury as well as to the Board of Trade?

Doctors

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Medical Practices' Committee have now supplied him with lists of those areas which are most in need of additional doctors.

Mr. McNeil: Lists were appended to a report of the Scottish Medical Practices Committee when it was published in the medical Press last January. The Comittee have the position under review and I expect to receive a further report in the autumn.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend consider approaching the Committee in order to add to these lists those areas which are over-doctored and those which are not adequately doctored?

Mr. McNeil: I think that would mean listing every area in Scotland, and that that would be an unnecessary work. The areas where we have any over-doctoring, or have more than sufficient numbers of doctors, are already well known, and I do not think that we could add to our information on the subject by following my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made towards reducing the maximum number of patients on a doctor's list, from 4,000 to 3,800.

Mr. McNeil: While the number of doctors with excessive lists is being steadily reduced I do not think I should yet be justified in lowering the prescribed maximum number of patients.

Camp, Ross-shire

Mr. J. MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to improve the bad conditions at the camp at Muir of Ord, in Ross-shire, which is at present occupied by squatters.

Mr. McNeil: I have called for an up-to-date report on the conditions at this camp, and I will later write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MacLeod: While thanking the-right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if he is aware that there are far too many of these ex-war camps in a most derelict condition throughout the country, and: that the matter ought to be treated very seriously?

Highlands and Islands (Development)

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now say when the White Paper on Highlands and Islands development is to be published.

Mr. McNeil: I hope that this White Paper will be in the Vote Office on Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Specialists

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions when it is proposed to apply the scales of remuneration authorised by the Minister of Health to specialists employed in Ministry of Pensions hospitals.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): The question of the remuneration of specialists in the Ministry of Pensions hospitals is being remitted to and independent committee set up in accordance with the recommendations of the


Chorley Report, which will review the pay and grading of all medical officers in the Civil Service.

Sir I. Fraser: In considering this matter will the Minister bear in mind that many of these specialists, who are doing comparable work, are now being paid less than half what is paid to similar grades in the National Health Service; and that it is so bad that the "British Medical Journal" refuses to advertise for these grades?

Mr. Marquand: I am well aware of the situation; that will all be in front of this committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the committee to report As my hon. Friend has said, there is a serious drain on the Service owing to the difference in the conditions between the two Ministries.

Mr. Marquand: I am not aware of any serious drain. The committee is just commencing its deliberations, and it would really be for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to answer questions about the date of the report.

War-Disabled Men (Motor Cars)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the increased duty on petrol, he is now able to say by how much he intends to increase the annual allowance paid to war pensioners to whom he has supplied motor cars.

Mr. Marquand: I have decided to increase to £50 per annum the allowance towards maintenance and running expenses paid to those war pensioners to whom I have supplied motor cars. The increased allowance will take effect from 18th April, 1950.

Mr. Snow: While accepting this evidence that at any rate a Labour Government keeps faith with the disability pensioner, may I ask my right hon. Friend how many of these grants are in payment, and whether the number is likely to increase?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, there are approximately 1,400 in payment at the present time. The number will go on

increasing, as I shall explain in answer to the next Question on the Order Paper.

Sir I. Fraser: Was it not shown in the Debate in the House the other day, when the Chancellor offered this concession, that these people will be at a loss of £10 each, not £5?

Mr. Marquand: People's circumstances vary very greatly, and it is impossible to give a general figure of that kind.

Sir H. Williams: How much will be left out of the £3 million balance on the amount raised on the Petrol Duty after the right hon. Gentleman has given this allowance?

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Pensions what steps he takes to see that a motor car is delivered to a war-disabled man as soon as possible after the approval of his Department has been given to the application.

Mr. Marquand: I undertook to supply 1,500 cars over a period of two years. Up to date, 1,334 have been delivered to pensioners: thus the promise is being completely fulfilled The actual date of supply to individual pensioners has been arranged as fairly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Ammunition Dumps, Hampshire

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will either remove, or provide guards for, the large quantities of ammunition still dumped in wooded country in north Hampshire.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): The two ammunition dumps in north Hampshire are guarded by civilian watchmen, four men being constantly on duty at each dump.

Mr. Donner: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Harewood Forest children, Communists and criminals can help themselves as they please?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. That is contrary to my information.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: Do not four make a good bridge party?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I visited the dump in Harewood Forest two months ago, examined the ammunition in the greatest detail possible without causing a by-election, and was not at any time interrupted by any of his guards?

Mr. Strachey: These are no doubt large dumps, but I think there is a fairly generous provision of watchmen. In any case, I think that the dumps are being fairly rapidly cleared.

Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I pass these dumps every-other day, and that I have never yet seen a watchman?

Cadets

Mr. John Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a large number of schoolboy cadets are prevented from attending annual camp through the inability of their parents to pay for boots; and whether he will now consider making one free issue of boots to members of cadet forces during their period of service.

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid that it is not possible to make a free issue of boots to cadets.

Mr. Tilney: Is the Secretary of State aware of the importance of encouraging recruiting to the cadet forces of this country, and that the lack of a free issue is detrimental to their training?

Mr. Strachey: We should no doubt like to make all sorts of further expenditure on the cadet forces, but we have to limit ourselves in this as in other matters.

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the inconvenience being caused to Boys' Brigades and other similar cadet corps by the inability of the Aldershot Command to lend them camp equipment as they have done in previous years; if he realises that it is only in the last few weeks, when no other arrangements could be made, that this decision has been conveyed to them; and what steps he will take to assist them.

Mr. Strachey: I appreciate the difficulties of these organisations. A redistribution of stocks of camp equipment in

Southern Command is being effected, which it is hoped will permit substantial help to be given to the organisations concerned.

Mr. Gammans: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why, only five years after the end of the war, it is apparently difficult to get enough equipment for these camps? What has happened to the immense war stores? If we cannot fulfil a demand like this, what would occur if we had to mobilise?

Mr. Strachey: It is largely a financial question, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that we can meet legitimate demands.

Fainting on Parade

Major H. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Guardsman Peter Youdale was put on a charge for fainting during the Trooping the Colour rehearsal on 29th May, 1950, and received punishment of five days' extra drill; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that fainting on parade ceases to be treated as a punishable offence.

Mr. Strachey: The hon. and gallant Member has been misinformed. While each case of fainting is investigated, no charge is preferred unless the man has fainted as a result of some action or negligence on his part which has rendered him unfit for parade. This guardsman was not guilty of such an act and was not put on a charge.

Major Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this guardsman had to suffer five extra drills? If that was not a punishment, what was it?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. My information is that after this occurrence this guardsman took part in the drills of his unit, which he had not been doing because of other duties beforehand, but these were in no sense a punishment.

Mr. Snow: What happens to a mounted officer who is unseated involuntarily from his horse?

Mr. Strachey: There again, no blame is attached to the officer if it is not considered that it was his fault.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Ministers get unseated, too.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the Secretary of State aware that the country is prepared to leave this to the justice of commanding officers, and that this Question was really quite unnecessary?

Mr. Blackburn: Is it not almost inconceivable that fainting in any circumstances could be a crime under King's Regulations?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. King's Regulations do provide that if, in the opinion of the authorities, the fainting has been due to some negligence on the part of the man or the officer, then a crime might be committed, but this did not arise in this case.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: What conditions which could be prevented by the individual give rise to fainting?

Mr. Strachey: Three conditions have been given to me, one of which is being out late at night on the eve of the parade.

Sentries (Orders)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will issue instructions to ensure that orders to sentries to shoot to kill are limited to theatres of war or very exceptional cases where special security considerations arise.

Mr. Strachey: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would await a statement on this and other issues raised by the Linsell case, a statement which, with your permission, Sir, and that of the House. I will make tomorrow.

Mr. Blackburn: While entirely accepting that, might I ask whether that statement will cover the general issue raised in this Question and not merely the particular case to which my right hon. Friend is referring?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, to the best of my ability.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Without asking my right hon. Friend to anticipate his statement in any way, might I ask him to bear in mind the importance of making it clear that it is not a defence to a charge of crime in this country, and never has been, that the man obeyed superior orders?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that sentries and other soldiers are not penalised for obeying orders?

Mr. Strachey: I think hon. Members should wait until tomorrow.

Lieut.-Colonel Lockwood: When the right hon. Gentleman makes his statement about the case of Private Linsell, will he inform the House what were, to quote the official document.
the other aspects which arose in the proceedings which might, in the Commander-in-Chiefs view, have influenced the court's decision and resulted in an injustice to the accused man"?
Will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind particularly to that point, and let us know what those facts were?

Mr. Strachey: I think I should avoid making a statement about a statement.

Camp Tents (Floorboards)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that under existing arrangements many Territorial Army units will not be issued with floorboards for tents at annual camp; and what steps he is taking to see that sufficient floorboards are available.

Mr. Strachey: Floorboards for Territorial Army camps are provided on the same over-all scale as before the war, which in practice has proved sufficient. They are distributed, according to the needs of individual camps, by commands, but if the hon. Member has any particular camp in mind I will look into the position.

Brigadier Head: In view of the immense number of floorboards in the country, is it not really cheese-paring to withhold floorboards from some camps because they are below a certain ground level? Would it not be better to give all the Territorials floorboards for their camps?

Mr. Strachey: I am informed that at the height of the camping season it is not possible to provide floorboards for camps of all kinds on a complete scale, but I think that we can meet all cases of real need.

Mr. Tilney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are considerable supplies of floorboards in private hands; and will he do his best to borrow them, anyhow for the camping season?

Mr. Strachey: We will look into that.

Personal Case

Mr. Albu: asked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds he has refused the request for compassionate release from the Army of 22209622 Craftsman Reynolds.

Mr. Strachey: This request has been refused on the grounds that the domestic circumstances on which it was based revealed no evidence of illness. As my hon. Friend has been informed, this soldier is being retained in the United Kingdom for three months on compassionate grounds.

Mr. Albu: In view of the fact that it appears that some of the evidence supporting this case has been mislaid, would my right hon. Friend have a personal investigation made into the case before the lad is sent abroad?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

Barracks, North Africa

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a unit of the 1st Infantry Division is required to share barracks in North Africa with German ex-prisoners-of-war employed as artisans; and whether he will have these arrangements altered and forbid them in future.

Mr. Strachey: I am making inquiries in this case, and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.

Officers (Excess Baggage Charge)

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that British officers travelling on special troop trains from London to Liverpool, en route for Malaya, are charged excess luggage on the baggage which they have to take; and if he will arrange with British Railways to cease this practice, or to charge any excess to his department's account.

Mr. Strachey: We do pay for an officer's baggage up to at least 5 cwt. for himself, an additional 6 cwt. for his wife and a further 1 cwt. for each child. He has only to get a warrant or consignment note for excess baggage up to this amount.

Sir J. Lucas: In view of the fact that many of these young officers are not married and have very little experience

of how much they have to take, maybe for one year or two years or perhaps for many years, cannot the Minister allow a reasonable latitude?

Mr. Strachey: I should have thought that 5 cwt. was a reasonable latitude.

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that officers proceeding in Government troop trains from London to Liverpool, en route for Malaya, are charged excess luggage rates for kit which they have to take, he will allow such payments for Income Tax relief until such time as they may be abolished.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): No, Sir.

Sir J. Lucas: If I am able to show that these men have been charged at the wrong rate will he see that suitable action is taken?

Sir S. Cripps: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has made it quite clear that there are very adequate allowances in these cases.

Sir J. Lucas: But the men appear to have been charged at the wrong rate. Cannot something be done about it?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that that has nothing to do with me.

A.A. Command Headquarters

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the changing nature of potential air-attack, he is satisfied that the proposed development of Headquarters, Anti-Aircraft Command, in its present location is both military sound and financially wise.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Harvey: Did the right hon. Gentleman arrive at that conclusion by assessing Headquarters Anti-Aircraft Command, as operational or administrative headquarters?

Mr. Strachey: As operational headquarters, but where it is located is entirely bound up with the question of Fighter Command of the Royal Air Force. We should take the advice ultimately of the Chiefs of Staff on this matter.

Mr. Harvey: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again.

Ex-Prisoners of War (Compensation)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider paying compensation to ex-prisoners of war who were permanently affected by their captivity, on the lines of the schemes now operating in the United States and Australia where a sum equivalent of 5s. is paid for every 24 hours' imprisonment.

Mr. Strachey: I would refer to the statement made by my hon. Friend on 13th June.

Air-Commodore Harvey: As that statement was unsatisfactory, will the Secretary of State keep an open mind until the matter has been settled in Australia, and study the proceedings there with a view to looking into it at this end?

Mr. Strachey: I will certainly study any proceedings, but I cannot guarantee to take them as a precedent.

Mr. Vosper: In view of the widespread opinion on this subject, and the fact that many people feel that they have been unfairly treated, will the right hon. Gentleman issue a memorandum to those concerned showing how it is that America can help in this respect and we cannot?

Mr. Strachey: I think that my hon. Friend's statement was very clear on this matter.

Anti-Bandit Operations, Malaya

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to raise special volunteer forces for offensive anti-bandit operations in Malaya.

Mr. Strachey: I do not know if my hon. Friend has in mind the engagement of special or irregular volunteer forces for service in Malaya; if so no steps have been taken to raise such forces.

Mr. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that for a war of this kind the most suitable troops are volunteer troops of the Commando type, such as were used during the war? Will he consider whether a special force can be raised?

Mr. Strachey: There are considerations of that sort, but, on the other hand, I

should be very cautious about recruiting anything of the Black and Tan type in this respect.

Brigadier Head: Does the Secretary of State recall that before he went to Malaya there was a suggestion from South Rhodesia for volunteers to fight in this area and that an answer to that suggestion is still pending? Cannot he expedite the reply?

Mr. Strachey: The War Office has that and other suggestions under consideration at the moment.

Brigadier Head: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell them to hurry up?

Meritorious Service Medal

Mr. G. P. Stevens: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to ensure a quick decision on the conditions attaching to the award of the Meritorious Service Medal.

Mr. Strachey: It has been agreed that all those who have already been registered for the award of the Meritorious Service Medal shall, in principle, receive the medal now. The actual issue may take some two years owing to practical difficulties. The grant of any annuity will be made as in the past, as vacancies occur. Once the medal has been issued to those at present registered, its issue in future cases will take place at about the time of registration. The numbers awarded will be such as to provide the numbers who may ultimately expect to receive the annuity, but for many years to come there will be a long period between the award of the medal and the grant of the annuity

Mr. Stevens: Having regard to the fact that some of those awarded the medal have been waiting nearly 30 years for it, would it not be possible to ensure that the medals are delivered in under two years from now?

Mr. Strachey: The numbers involved, as the hon. Member knows, are quite large, and I am advised that that is the time in which it can be done.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor, when answering a Question on this matter some six months ago and answering the same Question some two


years ago, in each case said that it was being considered by a board at the War Office, and that a decision was hoped for at a very early date? Is there any reason to expect that that decision will be come to quickly, and that it will be one favourable to these men?

Mr. Strachey: The decision has been made to issue the medals without waiting for vacancies to occur on the list of those eligible for the annuity.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does "in principle" mean the payment of the annuity almost immediately, although the medal may not be received for two years?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The payment of annuities can only begin as vacancies occur on the list.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the Secretary of State aware that his predecessor held out hopes that the medal might be issued to all the men concerned after a reasonable period, even if the annuity was not available? Is there any chance of that being done?

Mr. Strachey: I have just announced the decision that that will now be done.

Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the cost to the Treasury would be if the annuity list was complete?

Mr. Strachey: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHITE FISH INDUSTRY

Mr. Duthie: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now any statement to make on the white fish industry.

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make a statement on the white fish industry.

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement on Government policy with regard to the future of the fishing industry.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the white fish industry.

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement of Government policy in relation to the immediate difficulties and long-term problems of the white fish industry.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I hope to make a statement on this subject on Tuesday of next week.

Mr. James Stuart: Is the Prime Minister aware of the extreme gravity of the situation? Fish is being dumped at Moray Firth ports and urgent action is essential.

The Prime Minister: I am aware of that, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the great complexity of this question.

Mr. Duthie: Will the statement refer to the increased cost of gear and operating expenses generally?

The Prime Minister: I cannot particularise the statement at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENTAL DOCUMENTS (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Prime Minister if, when documents are placed in the Library by Government Departments for perusal by hon. Members, he will arrange for additional copies to be made available for the Press.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, not necessarily. If there is a clear demand in particular cases for documents which have been placed in the Library to be made available to the Press, Ministers will no doubt take that into account. The hon. Member, I have noticed, makes a frequent practice of asking Questions which, if they are to be answered, require the compilation of voluminous information collected from many Government Departments. I do not think, however, that he is entitled to assume that the Press will always have the same interest in information in this rather unwieldy form which he appears to have himself.

Mr. Erroll: Are we then to assume that such information may not be shown to the Press if they should be interested, in addition to hon. Members?

The Prime Minister: Not if they should want it, but I do not think that the general appetite is quite as great as that of the hon. Member for long lists of facts.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Are we to assume that the Prime Minister's reply was a rebuke to my hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, it was a recognition of an appetite.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at any rate, with regard to the question of petrol, in which my hon. Friend takes a great interest, it would require a volume to give the facts which the Government have hitherto concealed?

The Prime Minister: This has nothing to do with petrol.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (PUBLICATION)

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that Press announcements and wireless statements are not sufficient to inform all interested persons of changes in law or administrative regulations; and what instructions he has given Departments as to the further steps to be taken.

The Prime Minister: When changes are made in the law or in Statutory Rules and Orders which affect some clearly defined section of the community, Departments normally circularise the trade or professional organisations concerned, and I have no doubt that in many cases they pass on the information to their individual members; in the case of changes affecting the community as a whole, such as adjustments in the rationing system, it is obviously not possible to give direct warning to everyone individually, but as hon. Members will be aware, in addition to Press publicity, including advertising, and announcements on the wireless, posters are displayed and leaflets explaining the changes are often available in the local offices of the Departments concerned. In general, I have no reason to think that the publicity given to such matters is inadequate.

Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that in

future Government Departments will not assume and put in writing that information which is broadcast and given in the Press makes it certain that everybody understands an alteration in the regulations, particularly having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the other day told me that he himself had not the time to listen to wireless announcements?

The Prime Minister: I can never be sure that everybody will ever understand anything that is either written or spoken.

Mr. Assheton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very real problem at the present time, and that anything that can be done to help should be done?

The Prime Minister: I quite agree. We will do all we can, and if there is any specific Department which the right hon. Gentleman thinks is not doing its full share in this matter I hope he will let me know.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MARKETING (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Prime Minister whether the suggestions made by the Minister of Food, speaking at Catford on 12th June, represent the policy of the Government for the future organisation of fruit and vegetable marketing.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend, who was replying to a question regarding the Government's intention in the field of fruit and vegetable marketing, referred to the proposals contained in the election manifesto of the Labour Party at the recent General Election, which proposals, of course, still stand as a general declaration of our intentions.

Mr. Hurd: Is the House to take it that no particular significance attaches to the Minister's remarks, and that there is nothing to hinder producers promoting their marketing schemes under the Agricultural Marketing Act.

The Prime Minister: The statement stands quite clearly where it stands. I do not think there is anything to add to it. I do not know what is the point of the hon. Member's supplementary.

Mr. Hurd: Producers of tomatoes and cucumbers have promoted a marketing scheme under the Act. What I am seeking information about is, whether they are to be encouraged to go ahead and put that into effect.

The Prime Minister: That depends on the scheme.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the Prime Minister aware that considerable confusion exists in the public mind about the relationships between statements of Labour Party policy and statements of Government policy? Will he take steps to clarify the position?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any real difficulty. I have noticed certain differences on the other side between statements of policy and statements made by prominent members of the party.

Mr. Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House at any rate that he has read the statement of Labour Party policy?

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDRAULICS RESEARCH ORGANISATION

Mr. Erroll: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will give an indication of the research work carried out and the scientific results achieved by the Hydraulics Research Organisation since its inception four years ago.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Marked advances in instrumentation have included (a) methods for the continuous measurement of velocities in the sea and in streams without appreciable interference with the flow of the water and (b) the development of a pneumatic tide generator, which automatically reproduces any desired tidal conditions. Basic problems under investigation include: (a) the characteristics of natural water channels; (b) some problems of coast erosion; (c) the behaviour of channels in estuaries. Some problems of the Rivers Forth and Wyre have been studied with models.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Dollar Imports

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer since one-third of wheat flour and sugar, one-fifth of cheese, one-quarter

of petroleum and copper, one-third of zinc, four-fifths of aluminium, one-sixth of lead, two-fifths of cotton and one-half of tobacco imported in 1949 were free gifts from the United States of America under Marshall Aid, which of these items he proposes to cut down, and by how much for 1950 as a consequence of the smaller allocation of Marshall Aid for 1950.

Sir S. Cripps: Final decisions have not yet been taken on the level of imports of each of these commodities in 1950. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that supplies of the raw materials in question should be adequate to meet the needs of industry. While imports of tobacco and the particular foodstuffs mentioned are expected to be somewhat lower than in 1949, supplies should be adequate to meet the expected level of consumption or to maintain existing rations as the case may be.

Mr. Osborne: Does that answer mean that our earnings in North America have not been sufficiently increased to pay for supplies that previously have been given to us? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman anticipate that if we are not able to earn enough to pay for the foodstuffs there will have to be a reduction in rations?

Sir S. Cripps: The answer to both those questions is "No."

Property, Bahamas (Sale)

Mr. Donner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the purchase price paid by the Colonial Development Corporation for the estate recently acquired on the island of Eleuthera, in the Bahamas, was paid for in dollars to its American owner.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), on 20th June.

Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this transaction has terminated a policy of investment in the Colonial Empire, and is that a policy which has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's approval?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. That is not my understanding.

Stockings (Purchase Tax)

Mr. John Rodgers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that utility fully-fashioned stockings made from wool and heavy cotton are almost entirely used by the older section of the community, such as old-age pensioners, he would be prepared to relieve these stockings from Purchase Tax and confine such tax to fully-fashioned silk and nylon stockings.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. Fully-fashioned stockings of all kinds are still a very good export proposition and it is as necessary as ever to encourage the maximum export effort.

Mr. Osborne: Can the Chancellor advise the House when he expects supplies to be sufficient to give the home market a break?

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Gentleman will put down that Question to the President of the Board of Trade, no doubt he will answer it.

Mr. Osborne: And he will refer me back to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Inter-European Payments

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposed scheme for Inter-European Payments.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I cannot make a statement until these matters have been considered next month by the Council of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As the Chancellor claimed that this proposed agreement was a success for His Majesty's Government, and as he is waiting until after it is ratified next month so that there will be no opportunity for this House to discuss it before it becomes operative, can he say why the Government are so "cagey" in giving details of this so-called victory?

Sir S. Cripps: I did not make the statement which the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. We hope it will be finalised about 6th July, and subsequently no doubt it will be ratified by different countries.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the Chancellor looks at the speech he made last night he will see that he claims that this agreement was a "success." That was the actual word he used. If it is a success why will he not give details to the House?

National Savings

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the measures adopted by His Majesty's Government to support the efforts made by the National Savings movement to increase savings.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement of the Government's financial and economic policy contained in my last Budget speech.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Since the Chancellor made his last Budget speech there have been increased and ever-increasing withdrawals from National Savings. Is that not proof that his level of taxation is too high? What is he going to do to arrest this trend, because if savings decrease his whole Budget policy is finished?

Sir S. Cripps: That does not arise out of this Question, which asked what measures I had taken to support the efforts of the National Savings movement.

Mr. Drayson: Will the Chancellor consider paying a more generous rate of interest on National Savings certificates?

Sir S. Cripps: That has been considered.

Mr. Nicholson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the greatest contribution he can make to the success of National Savings would be to ensure the stability of the purchasing power of the pound internally?

Sir S. Cripps: That has been done.

Entertainments Duty

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what annual amount of entertainments duty is collected from societies not conducted or established for profit.

Sir S. Cripps: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Keeling: Can the Chancellor say that the estimated sum is so small that it will not of itself prevent him from accepting my Amendment to the Finance Bill on the Report stage?

Sir S. Cripps: I will certainly not say that, but I will say that it will not shake the Budget.

Post-war Credits

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that post-war credits have been compulsorily cancelled in respect of arrears of Income Tax of Service personnel on discharge, he will permit arrears of tax to be cancelled by post-war credits in all cases.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Miss Ward: Why should the right hon. and learned Gentleman have a privilege which he denies to ordinary members of the public?

Sir S. Cripps: I have no privilege.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: But did not this machinery operate during the financial year 1945–46? What is the administrative difficulty to it being extended to cover difficult cases?

Sir S. Cripps: That was as a very special arrangement which was made to clear up administrative difficulties which had arisen in dealing with these cases.

Foreign Currency Allowance

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the £15 foreign currency allowance for tourist motor cars to British-owned foreign-going yachts.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir, in suitable cases if it can be shown that the fuel necessary for the journey is likely to exceed the yacht's storage capacity and that arrangements for bunkering abroad against payment in sterling in the U.K. cannot be made.

"Bulletin for Industry" (Headline)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the headline on the front page of issue No. 19 of the "Bulletin for Industry" issued by the Economic Information Unit of the

Treasury was approved by him; and whether it is his policy to insert controversial matter in this publication.

Sir S. Cripps: The headline had my approval, and I can see nothing controversial in it. Care is always taken to ensure that this publication is factual and non-controversial in character.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that both the headline and the matter to which it refers, draw a comparison between the success and failure of the different industries, and that the material therein contained does terrible damage to the nationalised industries?

Sir S. Cripps: It may or may not be the case, but that does not seem to me to show that the headline is a controversial matter in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer mean that he now makes no attempt to defend nationalisation.

Sir S. Cripps: It means nothing of the kind. I believe it is wise to set out, factually, information about the industries concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREAN REPUBLIC (INVASION)

Mr. Churchill: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he has any further statement to make on the situation in Korea?

The Prime Minister: I have very little to add to the Press reports on the fighting in Korea. The scale and intensity of the attack leaves no doubt that this is a full-scale invasion. Although the attack was launched all along the 38th parallel, the first and main objective is clearly Seoul. The situation in and around Seoul is confused. There are reports that Northern Korean forces are pressing southwards to the east and west of Seoul, making full use of their superior mobility and greater weight of armour and artillery.
The latest information about the small United Kingdom community is that all of them and all the other Commonwealth women and children living in Seoul, who


wished to leave, moved to Inchon (the port for Seoul) on 26th June, for evacuation by sea. The Security Council is meeting again this afternoon.
With permission of the House, I will interrupt the Debate later today if any further developments of importance occur.

Mr. Blackburn: While entirely recognising that this is primarily a United States responsibility, may I ask whether the Prime Minister would bear in mind that there are many people in this country who believe that His Majesty's Govern-men should support the United States under Article 47 of the Charter if they are prepared to take action in collective self-defence with Southern Korea against this monstrous invasion?

Mr. Churchill: May I venture to express the hope that the Prime Minister will reserve discussion of this matter until the announcement foreshadowed for five o'clock comes to be made?

The Prime Minister: I think that that would be much the better course.

Mr. McGovern: Has the Prime Minister noticed the large, bogus peace demonstrations that are being formulated by the Communist Party in the country, which are usually a prelude to some foul act by the Kremlin? Is he further aware that there is a growing volume of public opinion in this country which thinks that this bogus Communist Party, with its criminal conspiracy, should be outlawed?

Mr. Bellenger: Does the Prime Minister expect that he will interrupt the proceedings for his statement before 7 o'clock?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say, but I think so.

Mr. John Hay: What steps are being taken by the Government to safeguard the lives of British subjects?

The Prime Minister: I thought I had made that quite clear.

Orders of the Day — SCHUMAN PLAN

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [26th June]:
That this House requests His Majesty's Government, in the interests of peace and full employment, to accept the invitation to take part in the discussions on the Schuman Plan, subject to the same condition as that made by the Netherlands Government, namely, that if the discussions show the plan not to be practicable, freedom of action is reserved."—[Mr. Eden.]

Which Amendment was to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the initiative of the French Foreign Minister of 9th May and, while recognising that it was not possible for His Majesty's Government to take part in the international consideration of his proposals on terms which committed them in advance of such consideration to pool the production of coal and steel and to institute a new high authority whose decisions would bind the Governments concerned, approves the declared readiness of His Majesty's Government to take a constructive part in the conversations with the hope that they may be able to join in, or associate themselves with, this common effort."—[Sir S. Cripps.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. Before the Debate is resumed, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you two questions in order to have the benefit of your advice to the House. You will remember that last week some of us pressed for an extension of time for the Debate yesterday and today. In view of your experience, do you not think that more time should have been given upon the big question that we are considering?
Secondly, may I ask your advice upon these facts. In yesterday's Debate leading right hon. Members took two hours and five minutes, and other right hon. Gentlemen took one hour. Five other Members took two hours and 36 minutes. On this side of the House four right hon. Gentleman and several hon. Members including three lawyers spoke, but not one miner, not one engineer and not one steelworker. In view of the effect of these proposals upon large-scale industry, should not more time have been given?


Can you say, based upon your experience in this Debate, whether more time should not be given to such questions in the future?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I can only say now that I trust that in the short time that is available today, hon. Members who happen to catch my eye will be as brief as possible so that I can get in as many as possible. We did very well yesterday up to a point, and then we rather broke down. I hope that today we shall keep it up. As to the number of speakers, I did my best. One cannot call everybody, but I did what I could.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I make it clear, Sir, that I know that at one time you had at least 78 names, and that others were coming afterwards, so we all have a great deal of sympathy with your difficulty.

Lord John Hope: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether a great deal of what the hon. Member has said was not a direct reflection on the Chair?

Mr. Speaker: It depends upon how a thing is said. I am certain that the hon. Member meant no reflection on the Chair. We all realise, as I realise, that it is very difficult, with so many people wanting to speak, to call every interest. We got through a fair number yesterday. We have already lost five minutes. Let us get on with the business.

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Edelman: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), in a fervent speech last night, made it clear that he was prepared under certain safeguards to surrender British sovereignty to a higher authority. That statement was frank and unambiguous, but the hon. Gentleman did not make it clear to what length he carried his own party with him in that statement. One of the problems of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, ever since the Leader of the Opposition first associated himself with the idea of a united Europe, has been to find out exactly to what extent the Opposition are prepared to concur in the surrender of British sovereignty.
Indeed, last year at Strasbourg, when the proceedings opened, it was widely thought among journalists, not only on the Continent but in America, that the Conservative Party were prepared, in

their adherence to the idea of a United Europe, to support the idea of a federal Europe straight away. Because that view was so widely held, the Labour representatives, who urged that European unity should be brought about by cooperation in specific agencies for specific purposes, were charged with dragging their feet. Depite the fact that the British Labour Government had made for so long a period and at so great a cost to the people of this country, a practical contribution to the welfare of the Continent, and despite the fact that Britain had made many sacrifices in order to bring about its revival, the Labour representatives were considered to be opposed to European unity.
When the Leader of the Opposition first came to speak at Strasbourg, he was thought by many of those present to be about to launch an all-out attack on the Lord President of the Council, for which newspaper correspondents had prepared the public. But when the Leader of the Opposition rose to speak, so far from attacking the Lord President, he went out of his way to associate himself with the approach which the Lord President had made to the unification of Europe. The Leader of the Opposition said:
It is not for us to make decisions which would require executive authority. We must not attempt on our present electoral basis to challenge the powers of the duly constituted national Parliaments founded directly upon universal suffrage.
Then the Leader of the Opposition went on to say in connection with the future political structure of Europe:
To take a homely and familiar text, we may just as well see what a girl looks like before we marry her.
That is the course of action which the Government have taken in connection with the Schuman Plan; and if the Leader of the Opposition considers that the Government have acted unwisely in asking for a preliminary inspection, he has only his own advice to blame for the action which the Government have taken.
The fact is that a Labour Government which had made this unequivocal statement on the question of the surrender of sovereignty and which had stated quite clearly that it was not prepared to commit itself to the principle of such a surrender without prior consultation with Parliament and the people could not have acted other than it has done in connection with


the invitation which was put forward by the French Government. Indeed, I can well believe that if the Leader of the Opposition had been in office, he, too, had he been consistent, would not have acted differently from the way in which the Prime Minister has acted.
One thing must strike everyone as remarkable, not so much in the nature of the Schuman proposal but in the manner of the proposal. I have referred to it already as an invitation. In point of fact, it might seem to many of us rather more like an ultimatum. No responsible Government could have committed itself to a principle which would have bound Britain to a surrender of sovereignty unless that Government had first made the most exhaustive examination of the proposal and then submitted it to the consideration of Parliament and of Britain as a whole. If we examine the Schuman documents and look at the project as outlined in the first communiqué, one thing which strikes us is that, although the plan as a whole is merely a sketch, it contains certain very specific proposals whose acceptance was inherent in the conditions which the French Government put forward for the conference.
One of the things which is made absolutely clear is that the structure of the body should consist of so-called "independent members." We are entitled to ask who the independent members are who would be put forward to direct the coal and steel industry of Europe. Who are these independent people, so free from national associations, so free from economic prejudice, such paragons of wisdom that they would be qualified to direct without any form of democratic responsibility a great European industry, which, after all, affects the lives of every one of us? These independent representatives would be answerable to no-one at all. They would be an oligarchy imposed on Europe, an oligarchy which, with arbitrary power and with enormous influence, would be able to affect the lives of every person in this country.
It is true that several Members of the Opposition have suggested that certain safeguards might be included in the plan which would prevent an abuse of power by the control board. What are the safeguards proposed by the French? The independence mentioned in the first com-

muniqué is a spurious one because the individuals who composed the body would be bound to have personal, national, perhaps even commercial, affiliations, although they would not be responsible to any elected body. They would be an arbitrary association, an undemocratic association of individuals, over whom there would be no public control whatsoever.
What other safeguards are included in the proposals put forward by M. Schuman? There is one suggestion which, in the context of what is happening in Korea today, seems almost laughable. That proposal is that there should be a United Nations inspector sitting on the board who would be able to report to the United Nations and make sure that the purposes of the board were pacific and in line with the public interest. Who would this United Nations inspector be? Would he be a delegate from Guatemala—somebody perhaps who had no connection whatever with the steel industry of Europe? It is impossible to believe that a proposal of that kind would be a safeguard adequate to prevent an abuse of power by the body if it were set up in the terms originally proposed by M. Schuman.
Even now, while the Paris Conference is going on, we read of improvised suggestions for some kind of democratic control for this body. We are told that M. Monnet has suggested that there should be an ad hoc Parliament of Europe which would have the responsibility of examining, presumably, the accounts and the proceedings of the coal and steel board; but is it possible to believe that such a Parliamentary assembly, scraped up for the specific purpose of examining in a very brief period the proceedings of this body over a whole year would be either technically or politically capable of providing sufficient supervision to prevent an arbitrary abuse of power?
I have drawn attention to certain weaknesses in the proposals, and yet for my own part I welcome the initiative which has been made by M. Schuman, because of the general purposes contained in the proposals. We, as Socialists, have always believed that one of the root causes of war, not only in Europe but throughout the world, has been a conflict for raw materials. If it were possible to unify


the Ruhr-Lorraine system of coal and steel production in such a way as to prevent the present political division—which on the one side prevents the iron ore of Lorraine from having its natural and organic relationship with the coal of the Ruhr and on the other side produces such abnormalities in the European political system as the present control of the Saar—if we could do away with that, if we could re-create the organic unity of Europe which the Schuman Plan proposes, then we should do two things at the same time.
Not only should we make the coal and steel industry of Europe more efficient, but, in addition to that, we should succeed in bringing Germany and France, and indeed ourselves, together in order to avoid the conflicts which before 1939 produced a succession of wars; or, when there was agreement a series of cartels. It is clear that, so far from being a cartel pledged to restriction, the Schuman Plan proposes that there should be a vast expansion of the coal and steel industry of Europe. Now the question is, in what form should that expansion take place? What guarantees can we find to make sure that, when that expansion takes place, we do not get back to the pre-war days when expansion was always associated with so-called over-production, which brought in its wake the disaster of mass unemployment?
The iron and steel industry of Europe was completely unplanned when it was left to the chaos of private enterprise. The result was that whenever there was over-production the less efficient firms were forced out of production through bankruptcy, but their own personal loss involved serious damage to the standard of life and the conditions of employment of vast numbers of workmen.
Later, to sort out the chaos and to try to bring some plan into the iron and steel industry of Europe great industrialists got together and planned cartels, not to absorb the production of the iron and steel industry of Europe but rather to close down plants, to rationalise, to drive certain firms out of production. The result was high prices and mass unemployment. In other words, whether there was a cartel or whether there was free enterprise, the results were always the same: there was mass unemployment in the iron and steel industry of Europe as long as that industry was either in the hands of

private enterprise or was planned exclusively by private enterprise.
The singular merit of the Schuman Plan is that for the first time there is a proposal that the planning of the industry should not be left simply to the industrialists who are primarily concerned with the profit which they are extracting from the industry, but that the industry as a whole should be planned with the cooperation of Governments. Therefore, although the present structure proposed by M. Schuman may require modification, the purpose behind the plan is one which we as Socialists should welcome. Although I have been talking about overproduction, and although that word was mentioned frequently in yesterdays' Debate, we do not have to look to Africa to mop up this so-called over-production. As long as there is a single house to be built in Britain, as long as there are railways and rolling stock and vehicles to be built in this country, it is foolish and wrong to talk of over-production of basic raw materials.
We have to devise a means by which we shall be able to have an organisation which is neither the arbitrary high authority proposed by the French nor an organisation of governmental representatives like O.E.E.C., whose limitations are caused to some extent by the fact that it is run almost exclusively by civil servants, able and eminent civil servants but nevertheless civil servants who have no direct electoral responsibility.
If we could evolve some kind of intermediate organisation which would be able to co-ordinate the industry of Europe, which would be able to bring the interests of Europe together which would be able to join in consultation not just a collection of international civil servants, not just a collection of govern-mentally-appointed independent people, but which would really be representative of employers, of trade unions, of consumers as well as of governments—if we had a body of this kind, then we would indeed have an international organisation which would be able to compose the differences existing between the different interests of Europe, which would harmonise them, and which would be a working body to which I am sure my own hon. Friends would have no objection. This would provide a common ground to which those hon. Members


opposite who are perhaps most vitally concerned with the interests of the employers could have no objection. A British nationalised board as employer could work side by side with the industrialists of France or the controlling employing organisations of Germany. That is the synthesis we must seek to find; and that is the common ground on which we must try to meet.
It may well be that at present there is no suitable name for such an organisation. It may well be that those who are much tied to terminology may object that this is not a supra-national body or, alternatively, that it is not an international body as we know it today. It may well be—as has been said in a different connection—that the word for this type of organisation has not yet been discovered, but if we approach the matter pragmatically, if we consider the actual merits of the situation, I believe we shall be able to put forward an alternative to the Schuman Plan which will have the effect of co-ordinating the basic industry of Europe in the interests of Europe as a whole.
Let us not imagine that the Schuman Plan, whatever form its organisation takes, can exist in a vacuum. One of the fundamental purposes of the Schuman Plan is to stimulate not merely production but also consumption. Consequently, if we want to stimulate consumption there will have to be an engineering organisation for Europe, there will have to be an agricultural organisation for Europe. This brings me to a question I should like to put hon. Gentlemen opposite: if there were a Schuman Plan for agriculture which envisaged a high authority for the agriculture of Europe, would they be prepared to go to the farmers of Britain and say, "We have surrendered our sovereignty to this high authority which henceforward will be able to tell the farmers of Britain exactly what they have to do?" I cannot help feeling that if a Conservative spokesman, having made that statement, were to go to the farmers and inform them of it, he would displace my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) from his place in the scale of the affections of the farmers.
There must be a complete series of interdependent organisations which will

flow from the application of the Schuman Plan. Therefore, I want to ask the Government not to wait till the discussions in Paris peter out in disappointment and in recrimination. If they do, I believe that our own Socialist idea of the planning of the basic industries of Europe by consent may be deferred for many years to come. I sincerely hope that, neither in the interests of prestige nor for any other comparable consideration, will we hesitate to put forward our ideas to the French as soon as possible.
I have made a suggestion for a quadripartite organisation of employers, trade unionists, consumers and governments which would have the effect of synthesising the views of the French and of ourselves, and if we put forward something of that kind—

Mr. John McKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that a tremendous number of hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Member at present speaking has been up 20 minutes already—

Mr. Edelman: I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly, but I was putting forward a suggestion which might be a bridge between the point of view of the French and our own point of view in industry.
I hope that the Government will consider my suggestion and will not wait until the Paris Conference is finally concluded before putting forward either that or any other constructive proposal. Britain has in the past proved her attachment to the idea of European unity. We have made great financial and material contributions to the revival of Europe. We must now show that despite sneers and incomprehension, from whichever direction they may come, we intend to persevere side by side with the Commonwealth in our practical support of a unified Europe, a Europe united in good will and by consent. I believe that we may thus discover not merely the means of creating a united Europe but also of laying the foundations for a united world.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) for a very helpful and constructive speech. I cannot say that I disagree with a word of it, and I hope that the Government


will listen to his advice. I would say to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) that it is extremely unfortunate that not many people can take part in the Debate. It is a pity that it is not a two-or even a three-day Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In a matter of this magnitude, it is not merely a matter of getting up to say a few chirpy sentences; anyone who succeeds in catching Mr. Speaker's eye might just as well make a case, lest he does not speak again for several months.
I hope to answer some of the questions which the hon. Member for Coventry, North, put to this side of the House. I say at the outset that one of the advantages of becoming old—almost the only advantage, I think—is that one can remember what happened quite a long time ago, because one was there. Everybody agreed yesterday that what happened in the 1920's was very important and that we can today draw some lessons from what happened in those years. I remember the 1920's very well indeed. I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I remember very well the coal stoppage of 1926 and its aftermath of cut-throat international competition in the basic industries, when every ton of coal which was cut in Europe was sold below the cost of production and the figures of unemployment in our basic industries went up and up.
At the beginning of 1928 I went to Germany. I went to the Ruhr and I met the leaders of the German coal and iron and steel industries. I am aware that the German industrialists of the 1920's are not regarded with much favour today, but they contained many men of great ability. Walther Rathenau, I think, was one of the most outstandingly clever men of our age. He was dead by the time I got there. Do not forget that these were the men who carried through the rationalisation of German industry which restored German industrial power. Do not forget that these were the men who founded the modern working parties in industry, who arranged for the scientific concentration of firms within an industry for the execution of common functions by means of a central executive. And do not forget that there is little doubt that their prototypes still exist in Germany today.
These industrialists, including Fritz Thyssen, expounded to me a plan for a European coal, iron and steel consortium, under British leadership. They said that in the modern world this would have to be under political control, and that the problem would, therefore, have to be approached at the political level. They also said that it was the only hope of avoiding a Second World War. Well, we got the Second World War. They complained that they could not talk to the representatives of the British coal industry because they said that at that time the representatives of the British coal industry would not talk to each other, and so there was not much chance of their talking to them.
So they asked me to make the first move at a political level. I came down to this House, and on 10th February, 1928—I cannot resist making a brief quotation—I said:
Our coal industry is engaged, so far as I can see … in a vast disorganised scamper for markets in Europe at any cost, at any price. … What is the effect? The effect is that the Germans are now preparing a retaliatory campaign …
It is a most senseless business. … For between them this country and Germany could control practically the whole of the coal markets of the world, outside the United States. At the moment both industries are running at a loss. … There is no conceivable doubt that the policy that we are pursuing with regard to coal is going to force the Germans to lengthen their hours and to lower wages in the coalmines.
And that is what happened. I went on:
I would say this to the President of the Board of Trade: the German coalowners, and the iron and steel industrialists also, are not only willing but most anxious to come to an agreement with this country with regard to markets and prices. … They say it would be a generous agreement on their part. …
What is the alternative to this policy? The alternative seems to be a sort of ghastly combination of dumping and tariffs on all sides. … I believe in Protection, both economic and political, against unfair attack from any quarter. But I also believe that treaties of arbitration and agreements are better than armaments, if you can get them.
I am certain, as a result of my visit to Germany, that an economic Locarno is possible in Europe today … If we can get that … then I believe we shall see in this country and in Europe … a period of unparalleled economic prosperity and development in the course of this century."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1928; Vol. 213, c. 445–449.]
I am naturally a very modest sort of chap, but as I re-read this speech, I must


confess that it occurred to me that it certainly looked as if I had anticipated the Schuman Plan by 22 years; and that is not bad.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is all in your book.

Mr. Boothby: It is all in HANSARD. There was an amusing, and to me a very gratifying, sequel. A few days after the Debate, I got a letter dated 16th February, 1928:
I write to congratulate you on your speech in the House. I have asked the 'Daily Express' to give you plenty of support. Don't be afraid of your independent line. You are making a good and great name for yourself. Yours ever, Beaverbrook.
In the event, nothing came of it. What happened was that Europe was in no condition to meet the impact of the American slump when it came in 1930. Riven by competitive nationalism, and continuing to apply the once valid but now disruptive ideals of undiluted national sovereignty and laissez faire, she accompanied the United States headlong into the abyss. And Hitler climbed to power on the backs of six million unemployed. That was the answer of the 1920's, and I do not think that we ought to forget it. So much by way of approach.
I do not think we can over-estimate the gravity of the issue which we are discussing. It is really the issue of peace or war. We are now faced with the greatest challenge that has ever been made to our Western democratic civilisation. How are we meeting it? I am afraid, not very well. We are at present losing this titanic struggle for world power. The Communists have their own ideas about international, political and economic integration, and they certainly put them into practice. During the last five years they have collected half Europe and the whole of China, with the exception of South Korea, and now they are collecting that. We have asked, through the United Nations, for a "cease-fire," and I think it quite likely that our request will very shortly be gratified, but only after Southern Korea has been added to the Communist empire.
I believe that there is only one answer to this Communist challenge—I have always believed it—and that is a comprehensive democratic union, based on a charter of human rights, strong enough to

resist aggression from without or from within. It can only be strong enough if it comprises the United States, the British Commonwealth and a united Europe—all three. I genuinely believe that one of the obstacles to the creation of such a union has been His Majesty's Government. Let me explain why.
In his speech at Fulton the Leader of the Opposition proclaimed the ultimate objective of wide Western Union under the acknowledged leadership of the United States. The Government said they preferred a European leadership. At Zurich later the Leader of the Opposition asked for a united Europe as an integral part of the wider Western Union and invited France to stretch out the hand of friendship to Germany in order to achieve this. The Government then said: "We prefer an Atlantic union." At The Hague Conference resolutions were passed which led directly to the Council of Europe and from that Congress the Socialist Party held conspicuously aloof and from that time they have put one obstacle after another in the way of European union.
Listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday I could not help feeling he was living in a world of illusion and I think that many hon. Members opposite share that illusion. He said:
at no time in our history has the understanding between this country and France been greater than it is today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 1939.]
And I think he believed it. I should like to ask if he received a telegram of thanks and congratulations from the French Government for the brilliant way in which he handled the devaluation crisis last year? It was, in fact, the biggest slap in the face ever given by this country to Europe. As I was listening to him, I began to feel quite sorry for the French of whom he said he had been seeing so much, because I think he genuinely believes they are devoted to him. They are very polite, but I do not think that is their real view.
I suppose I have been at pretty well every meeting of the European Movement in the last two and a half years, that movement to which the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) referred in rather contemptuous terms yesterday. Let me tell him that it is not run nor financed by the federalists. I can give him an assurance on that point. I have


never for one moment at any meeting of the Council or Executive disguised from them the fact that this country as the centre of the Commonwealth cannot enter a European political federation and that our approach to the problem of European unity must always be functional rather than constitutional. That attitude has been perfectly well understood on the Continent of Europe, and on this understanding we might have led the movement for European unity during the last two years. The whole Continent of Europe wanted our leadership and waited for it. They waited in vain.
Let me turn for a moment to what I will call the Schuman initiative because, as an hon. Member said yesterday, it is not a plan—it is an initiative. I think that to some extent it was born of despair with the lack of British leadership and the negations of British policy. It could and should have been our initiative long ago. From an economic point of view, there is nothing very original or startling about it. Why, then, has it so stirred the imagination of an increasingly hopeless Western world? That is because it is the first real effort to break the icy fear which now grips a distracted and divided Continent and to re-animate the movement for European union and, above all, solve the eternal German problem. That is why it has given rise to such hopes and why it should have given rise to great hopes here.
I think that, after their experience of the last two or three years, we cannot blame the French Government for regarding this as a test of our sincerity, and I say that we have failed miserably to meet that test. There is nothing in these documents to prevent us from welcoming that initiative. There is nothing which need have prevented us from joining in the discussions from the outset on terms completely understood by the French Government—indeed on the terms accepted by the Dutch Government. There is nothing except legal quibbles, of which we heard enough yesterday.
I want to make a brief reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, East, yesterday. It was characteristic, always interesting, sometimes mischievous, and he had pretty well to box the compass before we got the real point he wanted to make. I do not think it is very helpful at this juncture

to talk about taming the Germans by means of a power relationship, or to refer to the inner defeatism of the French. At one point the hon. Member was saying that if we cannot have a complete federal union now, we cannot have anything in Europe. If anything is defeatism, that is. But, of course, he did not stop there. He often comes round to the right thing in the end. I never know why he has to go round so many circles to get there. If he would go straight to the point instead of round to it, it would be simpler to our minds. At the end of his speech, he saw not only the light, but the red light, and saw what could happen if there was a treaty between Germany and France from which we were finally excluded. He said that it is not too late to devise a compromise and his wishes, were echoed by the hon. Member for Coventry, North. I agree it is not too-late to devise a compromise and put forward proposals, nor too late to ask the Government to go into those discussions now.
I want to ask these questions of the right hon. Gentleman. Do we really want to be isolated? I can think of no country in the world less fitted for political or economic isolation. Do we really want to find ourselves confronted by a hostile United States and a hostile united Europe under German leadership, each with a capacity of steel production greater than ours? I cannot believe it and yet, if one reads this famous, or infamous, pamphlet published by Transport House, it would seem to be so. I must confess that it came as no great surprise to me, nor, I dare say, did it come as a great surprise to the hon. Members for Oldham. West (Mr. Leslie Hale), Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang) and Reading North (Mr. R. Mackay). They know as well as I do what we have been up against for the past three years In the Debate on Western Union on 5th May, 1948, the hon. Member for Reading. North, said:
Will the Prime Minister let us know-exactly where we are in regard to the question of sovereignty?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1948; Vol. 450, c. 1284.]
Well, he has got his answer.
This document is redolent of the narrow, insular nationalism and isolationism of which the late Lord Snowden was, so formidable an exponent and which


still has deep roots in this country. It breathes the genuine spirit of Little Englandism, which lost us our American Colonies and finally landed us in two world wars with inadequate armaments. George III himself was scarcely less vehement a champion of rigid, uncompromising national sovereignty than the present Minister of Town and Country Planning. Superimposed is the doctrinaire national Socialism to which we have become accustomed:
No Socialist policy could accept a system by which important fields of national policy were surrendered to a permanent anti-Socialist majority.
There we have it, nationalisation and nationalism marching hand in hand. They think that they and they alone have discovered in planned national Socialism the secret of full employment and I, with a terribly long experience, am quite convinced they have not. They make a great mistake. Full employment in the last six years in this country has been due to the continuance, against expectation, of the sellers' market, Marshall Aid and the sustained prosperity of the United States. We now have to face the certainty of a surplus production of steel in Europe and the probability of some subsidence in the present level of postwar demand. What then happens? There are two alternatives—a war of economic attrition such as we had in the 1920's, or international economic cooperation designed to regulate production and expand demand. There is nothing between the two.
There is no bottom to uncontrolled competitive international trade but the rice diet.
That is a remark which the Minister of Health may remember, because I am quoting him. There is no surer method of stifling demand in the long run than economic nationalism.
In an effort to find excuses for rejecting European union, because that is what this pamphlet amounts to, the pamphlet falls back upon two things—Atlantic union and the Commonwealth. I wish to say a few words on that. Maybe the authors of the pamphlet forgot the Preamble to the Marshall Plan passed by the Congress, which states:
It is further declared to be the policy of the people of the United States to encourage the unification of Europe.

I do not think we ought to forget that. In any event, we are unlikely to further the cause of Atlantic Union by what the "Manchester Guardian" quite justly calls "self-righteous insular boasting," and that is what this pamphlet was—self-righteous insular boasting.
As for the Commonwealth, there was no responsible European statesman at Strasbourg who did not believe and declare that the Commonwealth must be closely associated with European union at every stage. They know perfectly well that without the Commonwealth and without their own oversea associated territories, Western Europe can never hope to be viable either politically or economically. Hence the reference in the Economic Report to an extension of the preferential system. Far from being contradictory, I believe that the conception of a united Europe and a united Commonwealth is in essence complementary.
Many of these European countries would like nothing better than to join, on our terms, the sterling area. If we had from the beginning acted in close co-operation with the Dominions, as we should have done, if we had, with them, given the necessary leadership, those countries might be in the sterling area today. As usual we gave no leadership. And now, I suppose, the Commonwealth itself is to be ruled out on account of having become anti-Socialist.
I hate the expression "supra-national" but I am quite willing to face up to the question of national sovereignty. When all is said and done, unbridled national sovereignty remains the prime cause of the hideous disasters that have befallen us in this nightmare century. It is inconceivable to me, as it was to Philip Lothian, that we can continue much longer in Europe as an anarchy of separate sovereign nation-States. Some form of integration, both economic and political, is bound to come. If it does not come by voluntary union, it will come by way of empire. It nearly came by way of Hitler's empire. It may still come by way of Stalin's empire. We now have to break down national sovereignty by practical action in defined spheres of activity, and to use modern technical progress to build up a coordinated, complementary and expansionist Western economy. That is a


revolutionary project, at least comparable to the industrial revolution of the 19th century; and, as then, the approach must be functional and empirical.
I do not believe in putting this country in economic bondage to anyone. Nor do I believe in giving undertakings which we cannot fulfil. After all, I am on the record about the first American Loan. But I do believe that there must be not so much a surrender as a merger or pooling of national sovereignty for specific purposes if we are to survive. I also believe that we ought to have taken part in the discussions on this vital topic from the very beginning. Indeed we ought to have led them. We could have guided them had we been there.
What are the implications? In the economic field it certainly involves the co-ordination of national monetary and fiscal policies and the acceptance of the principle of planned international investment, production and trade, and the abandonment of the principle of nondiscrimination. The truth is that the only alternative to international economic planning in the modern world is rigid national autarchy, and that is the path which the Government have apparently elected to follow.
The fundamental choice confronting us in this country today, both in the political and economic fields, is between the rule of law and the rule of the jungle. The Communists are relying on the present anarchy of State sovereignties, accompanied by cut-throat international economic competition, to bring about the collapse of our Western democratic world. At the moment they have pretty good grounds for confidence. There is still time, but only just, to prove the Communists wrong.
Yesterday the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. R. Adams) thought fit to make an attack on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He attacked his political record and even went so far as to make a disparaging reference to "blood, sweat, toil and tears." I would only say that in 1940 we saved Europe and Western civilisation, under my right hon. Friend's leadership, by our exertions, even though they did involve blood, sweat, toil and tears. In 1950 we can save Europe and Western civilisation again by our example,

but it looks to me as if it will again have to be done under the same leadership.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Mackay: I should like to offer my congratulation to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby). It is not that I agree with all that he said in regard to European union, but obviously with much of what he said I agree completely. I trust he will not blame me if I do not follow him in all the remarks he has made. We have had in this Debate discussion of two matters, the Motion which has been put down, and the Amendment to it, and also the pamphlet which was issued some time ago. I have already said elsewhere what I have to say about that pamphlet, and there is no need for me to weary hon. Members again with it this afternoon.
I wish to look, as few Members have looked, at the Amendment which has been put down, and, in the time available to me, examine in a constructive way what steps can be taken now. It is no use going over the past. If mistakes were made, then they were made, but I have grave doubts whether a Conservative Government would have taken a line different from that which the Labour Government have taken in regard to the Schuman negotiations. The problem which confronts us all—and it is a problem which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East did not really face, and which the House of Commons itself has never faced—is to what extent are we prepared to go into Europe? This issue has not been faced to date at all—and that is true of all parties and of all hon. Members as well.
It would be a pity if this Debate were to pass without some positive and definite constructive proposals being made as to the way in which we in this country can take part in the integration of Europe. Before coming to that, however, which will be the main point of my remarks, I wish to make two preliminary observations as a background to it. The first is a reference to the economic position of this country and the second is to the Commonwealth.
My angle of approach is from the point of view that there is really no great hope of an improved standard of living for the people of this country except in so far as


we take part in an economic integration of Europe. With a world boom for the last five years, with no competitors such as Germany and Japan, which we have previously had, with customers whose pockets are filled with sterling to buy our goods, we are not exporting today more than we exported in 1913. That must be borne in mind. I would remind hon. Members that the population of the United States is 10 per cent. higher than it was in 1938 but their imports are 7 per cent. less because they are today more able to satisfy their own markets and their own demands by the manufacturing capacity of their own country. I would also remind hon. Members that our share of imports into the United States, which was 7 per cent. in 1938, is 4 per cent. today. I do not intend to complain about the export drive which the Government have made over the last five years. Obviously every one of us should take part in it. The more we can export the better, but if anyone seriously thinks that there is any evidence to show that we can balance the dollar gap by an increase of our exports or improve our general economic position by those methods, they are really not facing the facts in a sensible way.
I was reading the third volume of the war history of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) when coming back from America a few days ago, and I noticed that there was a great dispute between Government Departments as to what was the strength of the German Air Force in, I think it was, 1940, or it may have been 1941. A High Court judge was appointed in order to ascertain the facts. He was given all the documents and access to everything and told to report to the Prime Minister what the facts really were. I think the time has come when we in this country should have the fullest examination ourselves to secure the answer to the question, can a country of 50 million people in the second half of the 20th century survive on their own without their full economic integration with the other countries of Western Europe? I have spent about 10 years studying the problem and I think that the answer is that we cannot. Because of that view, I have urged strongly in this House and elsewhere the need for the closer economic integration of Western Europe with Great Britain.
It will, of course, be said that the Commonwealth stands in the way. I have spent two-thirds of my life in the Commonwealth and only one-third in Great Britain, and I have often to shake my head and wonder whether the people in this country (a) know nothing about the Commonwealth, and (b) are really interested in it. I remember the American Loan and the complaints about the harsh terms on which the Americans were lending to Great Britain. Nowhere in the history of the great British Commonwealth is there any evidence of Great Britain having made a loan to any one of its Dominions on terms half as favourable.
The complaint about this document recently issued are equally true of the attitude of this country to the Commonwealth as a whole. But there is no inconsistency. In the first place, Great Britain has more investments outside the Commonwealth than she has inside the Commonwealth. She has a greater trade outside the Commonwealth than inside. The Commonwealth as a whole cannot sell its raw materials inside the Commonwealth. Australia cannot sell its wool, for example, and there are many others.
Therefore, the Commonwealth as an entity is not self-sufficient, but there is no real conflict in the interests of the United Kingdom and the other members of the British Commonwealth and Western Europe. We are told that we must preserve the sterling area and that Western Union is incompatible with it. Take Great Britain away from the Commonwealth countries and put it in Europe, and in 1938 Europe has 52 per cent. of the world trade. Even in 1948 if Great Britain is put in with Europe then Commonwealth trade is 7 per ent. of the total and that of Great Britain and Europe 45 per cent. The fact is that Britain is the largest single trading area in the world. Put it with the Commonwealth, or with Europe, or with America or with the Soviet Union and the resulting area will become the largest trading area in the world.
It is confusing to talk about the sterling area in this way unless we acknowledge that if we take Great Britain out of the sterling area then Europe plus Great Britain would become the greatest economic power in the world. I would ask


hon. Members to think about this problem; for there really is no conflict. We have heard so much about the fact that there is a conflict between the Commonwealth and Great Britain going into Western Europe. That is untrue. No one has ever suggested any Western Europe integration which should develop otherwise than with the Commonwealth coming in. Every suggestion at Strasbourg and every other place has always been upon the question of bringing in the Commonwealth. What I would like to see, and I hope it can be done, is that the Government, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, should set out to draft a treaty between the Commonwealth countries and the Council of Europe, transferring to the Council of Europe—just to see how it works out—the rights those countries have in Great Britain at the present time.
I speak with some practical experience. I am an Australian subject, or I was; I am now a United Kingdom subject under the new Act. But it would be very easy to give to all the members of the British Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom the same rights in Western Europe as they have in Great Britain. It would be equally easy to give to members of the British Commonwealth the same rights in trade preferences and the like in Europe as they get in Britain under the Ottawa Agreement. There is nothing at all to stop that development taking place.
But, as I have already said, there is no real inconsistency in this matter. May I remind hon. Members that in the General Affairs Committee in Strasbourg last December a resolution was passed:
That the Committee on General Affairs expresses its unanimous wish that the President of the Assembly should establish contact with the British Government to request that it arrange for informal talks to take place between representatives of the countries in the British Commonwealth and representatives of the Council of Europe, with a view to seeing how the Commonwealth can co-operate in the political or economic field with the Council of Europe.
In view of that Resolution, why should we be arguing that, there is an inconsistency? Take the letter written by the Foreign Secretary to the President of the Consultative Assembly in March of this year. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning knows about this because he was as much responsible

for this Resolution being passed and for its success as anyone—and it is only right that hon. Members should know that. The letter from the Foreign Secretary states—I am not reading all of it, but the last sentence is:
The representatives of the other Commonwealth Governments expressed the view that there need be no inconsistencies between, the policy followed by the United Kingdom Government in relation to Western Europe and the maintenance of the traditional links between the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
I think it only fair to say that at the Press conference which took place at that time a gentleman raised the question whether there could not be a proper meeting between representatives of the Council of Europe and the British Commonwealth. The Minister of Town and Country Planning replied that if that was required he saw no reason why it should not take place.
I would ask hon. Members to put aside this bogey, to lay it to rest once and for all. There is no one in the Commonwealth, no responsible statesman in any one Commonwealth country today, who will not join with the United Kingdom in any steps which it takes to bring about a better economic and political unity of Great Britain and the European States. There is no reason why we should not have observers at the Strasbourg Assembly to go on developing this relationship.
If we need not worry about the Commonwealth, may I devote the little time remaining to me to the question raised? We are asked to approve in the Government's Amendment its readiness to
take a constructive part in the conversations with the hope that they may be able to join in or associate themselves with, this common effort.
It is the constructive part about which I wish to make a few remarks.
Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer—though I may not agree with all he said—raised quite frankly and definitely the issue. He said, "Do you wish to go into European unity in an organisation on the inter-governmental level, of which O.E.E.C. is an example, or by some kind of supra-national authority?" That is the issue which every hon. Member must face, and which many have not faced in the past. If the issue had to be decided by a vote—and it would be


an infinitely better Motion than the one put down by the Opposition—most Members would decide that they wanted to come in on an inter-governmental level. Of course, there are a few extremists of the Right who would not go anywhere at all and who would be willing to allow the country to suffer because they are not prepared to co-operate with their comrades in Europe. This, however, is the real issue of this Debate.
There are people, of course, who say, "You who have been advocating federalism always wanted a supra-national authority." I have learned in politics that one has to put up with the least bad, the second best, or even a choice further down the line. It is no good going on saying, "Federalism, federalism, federalism" forever when one knows one cannot get it. What we must do today is to have a look at the Council of Europe and ask the question, "Can this develop into a political authority in Europe, and if so what steps should be taken to bring about that development?" The essence of the Schuman Plan is to create such an outside authority. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Council of Europe provides a proper authority to which the board for the coal or steel industries of Europe under the Schuman Plan could be responsible. It is good for this reason. There are two bodies on the Council of Europe, the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. I know that there are weaknesses but they could be greatly improved. In the Council we have an assembly which is the proper place for the Schuman proposals to be brought up—I hope. I hope that, if the proposals, which we understand are being prepared by the British Government, are prepared, they will be brought before the next Assembly for discussion and thereafter be considered by the Committee of Ministers.
I do not suggest that the Assembly is in any sense a representative House in the same way that this Parliament is the representative House of Great Britain, but I suggest that steps should be taken to make it that in the next five or 10 years. The Committee of Ministers is a body on which the Governments have the say. We are, therefore, combining in one political organisation the supra-national authority with the inter-Government level.

We are saying that we should let the Assembly which, after all, does represent a number of people, take the initiative in these matters. We should let them formulate proposals for European organisation which may be seriously considered and dealt with by the Committee of Ministers representing the Government.
If we adopt this proposal we are not giving away the control of the standard of living of the people or of our industries. We are not giving away in any sense the ultimate control of whether our plant is to be closed or not, because on the Committee of Ministers there must be unanimous decision, and we have our representative on that body. Let us be constructive. If we genuinely believe that European unity means something which is vital to all of us, but if we are afraid of going into a European Parliament because of conditions operating in other parts of Europe about which we cannot see eye to eye, and if we are not at present—as most English people are not—prepared to go blindly into a federal union of Europe, then here is a very interesting and simple solution for the development of a European political authority which meets all our needs.
In three or four years the Assembly can become a representative Assembly and a Lower House. The Committee of Ministers can become an Upper House, but instead of being elected by the people as many Upper Houses are, it would be an Upper House representative of Governments. The member States of the Council of Europe are great Powers, or they have been. They are powerful national entities and they have a whole lot of prestige behind them. They are not prepared to give away their sovereignty as other States like those in the American Union were willing to do.
I suggest to the Government that they give a little thought to the whole problem of the way in which the Council of Europe can be developed as an appropriate political authority for Europe. I am a little frightened that they are more concerned to develop the machinery of O.E.E.C. than to develop the political authority of the Council of Europe. I read with interest a letter from Sir Oliver Franks to Mr. Paul Hoffman, a few days ago. One of the illustrations he gave of the way in which Great Britain is playing its part in the movement for European


unity was "the political venture of the Council of Europe."
The Minister of Town and Country Planning, in a speech at Strasbourg which many people appreciated at the time, pointed out that as the Council of Europe developed it could take over the functions and the Committees of O.E.E.C. It is on those lines that I hope that events will develop. It is for that reason that I say to the Government, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he says that the issue which is posed today is an issue of whether we have to have an authority at the level of Governments or a supra-national authority, that while what he says is quite up-to-date it need not be so in the future. There is no reason why, if we develop the Council of Europe by creating out of the Assembly an Executive and by giving the Assembly itself a much more representative character than it has, and by treating the Committee of Ministers as an Upper House with a unanimous vote, we cannot keep the political institutions that we want for the protection of the Government of this country and, at the same time, develop in Europe a political authority which, in five or 10 years' time, may give us the political and economic integration that we require.
Professor R. H. Tawney, who has been a great exponent of the ideas of the Labour Party and who has probably expressed in his writings more about the thoughts of the party than any other living person, in a recent lecture, ended by saying:
The gravest issues confronting us, therefore, if complex in detail, are, in principle, simple. The first is to reconcile the … liberalism, which is a property, not of any group or party, but the history of the Western Europe, and whose fruits are civil liberty, tolerance, and political democracy, with the tasks imposed by the emergence of a mass technology and the obligations of the welfare State.
I think that we have been doing this in this country for the last five years with some success. He went on:
The second is to win general recognition for the truth that departments of life which, in a not distant past, could reasonably be regarded as the exclusive province of a score of separate Governments have been converted by the the changes of the last two generations into matters which, to be handled with effect, must be treated as affairs of common concern. It is to do on a grand scale for a Europe cabined and confined in a maze of restrictive nationalisms what was done, on a narrower

stage, when economies crippled by the obsolete fetters of provincial particularisms municipal liberties and seigneurial franchises were submitted to the unifying control of authorities with wider horizons and a more inclusive grasp.
The currency, the basic industries and the trade of Western Europe can no longer be cabined and confined within the narrow framework of 15 or 16 national States. We in this country, who have more to lose so long as we continue to play with this present form of economic nationalism, must face the necessity for change and take our proper place in the development of the Council of Europe so as to create ultimately an effective political authority for this great area of Western Europe.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Garner-Evans: The hon. Member for Reading, North, (Mr. R. Mackay) said that he was frightened, and so am I. I am making a maiden speech. I am terrified about many events, and I am particularly distressed about this Debate. It discloses a fundamental difference between the Government of this country and the Government of France. That is a most distressing feature. It discloses, too, that we have now come to a parting of the ways on the bi-partisan foreign policy pursued by this country since 1945. Hitherto, we have been able to agree on fundamental issues. Now, for the first time since 1945, we find the Government and the Opposition defi-itely opposed.
I am also distressed that this Debate has disclosed, not only in this House but in the country, a falling in the standard of internationalism on the part of supporters of the Government. I speak with all sincerity when I say that I have always respected hon. Members opposite for their international idealism. I fought side by side with them in many battles between the two wars. I remember the great idealism of the Prime Minister when he fought for the Geneva Protocol. I remember the attitude the Labour Party took in the Disarmament Conferences. I remember the attitude of the present Minister of Fuel and Power.
I wish to goodness that the party opposite could recapture some of the idealism of George Barnes and Arthur Henderson. I wish that they could turn back on this new nationalistic socialism which has been discovered by the Chancellor of the


Exchequer. I wonder what George Barnes would have said if he had read that new document entitled "European Unity"? I wonder what Arthur Henderson would have said if he had read that statement which suggested that we can get along only with Socialists. It is this new conception which unfortunately divides us at the present time.
May I make this appeal? I beg hon. Members opposite to get back to the idealism and internationalism of George Barnes and Arthur Henderson, and to get away from this narrow, selfish, isolationist and smugly complacent attitude of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, to get away from this economic nationalism which was so well expressed in his speech last night, and to get back to some sort of expansionist policy. I am sure that one of the things that distressed us most was the idea, which he mentioned when he spoke yesterday, that any international plan would weaken our coal and steel industry. Not a bit of it. If only the right hon. and learned Gentleman would get back to his old ideas, he would see that there is at present no expansionism in Europe and that that is just what Europe wants.
In regard to the Schuman Plan itself, I find the most extraordinary remarks in the White Paper and in some of the Government communiqués. I find that, when they came to discuss this principle of whether we shall pool our coal and steel resources with those of Europe and come under a supra-national authority, the Government could not make up their minds. It may be that they are for it, and it may be that they are against it, but the duty of a Government is to be able to decide on an issue of principle.
What are the principles concerning the pooling of steel and coal? If we read the documents, we find that, all along the line, there are expansionist ideas. It is a case of more production, the modernisation of production, freer trade and greater free trade areas with regard to these commodities, the raising of the standards of living—these are the basic ideas and principles upon which, apparently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor cannot make up his mind. I can say quite honestly, that, as far as I am concerned, and, I think also as far as the majority of the people of

this country are concerned, they are prepared to accept a supra-national authority to decide matters of this sort.
Why this fear on the Government benches? They themselves have advocated this particular type of organisation. There are some lengthy extracts from speeches made by the Prime Minister which I could quote, not only from the years 1939 and 1940, but going further back than that. We already have a supranational authority in a wider sphere, on which we are represented, and, at certain points, where it is necessary that our national sovereignty should be abated, we can accept that situation so long as that supra-national authority is working on those principles which we have agreed. The principles, of course, include the idea that it shall operate on an expansionist policy.
What terrifies me at this moment is this. At a time when we are entering into new commitments, when the idea of national sovereignty is going by the board, and especially under the North Atlantic Treaty—and I believe that, in the words of Dean Acheson, that that was one of the most revolutionary results of the London Conference—at a time when we accepted the abatement of sovereignty at a London Conference, only six weeks ago—an abatement far greater than anything we have ever accepted before, since we have accepted the idea of a common foreign policy with 11 other Governments—we have this extraordinary situation. We actually agreed to a communiqué setting up, in addition to the North Atlantic Treaty Council, a Council of Deputies, and what terrifies me about it is this: if the Government are not prepared to abandon sovereignty in the case of the Schuman Plan, neither will they abandon sovereignty in the much more important field of the North Atlantic Treaty Council. When we read in the Press the other day of the appointment as deputy of a certain gentleman who, admirable though he may be, is a diplomat of the second rank, I am afraid that it rather indicated that the Government does not mean business.
More important even than the coordination of foreign policy and the question whether the North Atlantic Treaty Council should decide policy for the whole Atlantic community is this revolutionary idea of balanced collective forces.


Our sovereignty has gone here, because we have a North Atlantic Council which can say to us, "You do not have to bother about artillery; you get on with the job of building houses;" or which can say to the Dutch or to the French, "You get on with building small boats." Behind all this, apparently, there is to be—at least, I hope there is, if the scheme is to become a reality—a collective defence budget for the whole of the Atlantic community, and our share is to be worked out according to some kind of formula. If we drag our feet at this moment and reduce the great design of an Atlantic community with a common economic organisation, a common defence organisation and a common foreign policy, the whole thing will collapse.
The news from Korea is bad. It is through the North Atlantic Pact and the organisation of a world community that we can really organise ourselves so as to abate our sovereignty where necessary, and in that way get on with the job of preserving the peace of the world.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The House always listens very patiently and with very great interest to anyone addressing it for the first time, and I think that all of us will have listened to the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Garner-Evans) with an even greater degree of sympathy than is usual because he has chosen an occasion of very great difficulty on which to make his maiden speech to the House. I think we all agree that the hon. Gentleman has impressed the House with the carefulness of his studies of this question, and the clarity with which he has conveyed to the House the views which he has formed. We shall all be glad to hear him again on other occasions.
It is, of course, a tradition that an hon. Member addressing the House for the first time should not be controversial and that whoever speaks next should not be controversial about that hon. Member either. I think that the hon. Member for Denbigh was a little led away from that, but I believe that the importance of the occasion justified it, and that he was perfectly right to be controversial about controversial matters if that is how he felt about it. May I say, without wishing to be too argumentative, that while we listened with great interest to what he

had to say about the idealism of the Labour Party in the past, we would like to disillusion him about any anxieties he may have about this idealism in the present? What we are trying to do is to carry out, in a very difficult world, and in the face of the hard reality of the practical facts, the ideals upon which this party was built.
This has been a fascinating, not to say an astonishing, Debate, and it is a privilege to have the opportunity of taking part in it. I think it would be fair to say that, for the most part, the Debate has not been about either the Motion which the Opposition have put upon the Order Paper or about the Amendment which the Government have put down to it. I am afraid that that is largely the fault of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say to him in all humility that, in the interests of Parliamentary debate, he-ought really to impose upon himself a self-denying ordinance never again either to open a Debate in the House or to speak early in it, because the inevitable result is that when he has finished, the Debate is over. He might as well make a speech ending the Debate instead of at the beginning of it because when he makes a speech at the beginning, it becomes inevitable that everybody who speaks after him shall speak about something else, or repeat over and over again fallacies and inaccuracies already demonstrated.
I wish to come back to the Motion which asks the House to say that the Government were wrong in what they did with regard to the Schuman proposals or Schuman initiative—I do not call it the Schuman Plan. Is there really anybody who has spoken in the Debate who thinks that the Government were wrong? The Opposition have not said, so far, that the Government were wrong in the sense that they would have acted differently—or have they? The Government were not asked, on the Schuman proposals, to enter into a general discussion, with nothing barred, as to how we might co-ordinate or, possibly, integrate the coal and iron and steel industries of Europe. Had they been asked to do that, it is abundantly clear in this document that they were then, and are now, ready to go into any such discussions with anybody and to consider the whole subject in the broadest way.
The point of the Schuman proposals was that they did not leave it to the Government in that unlimited, unhampered way. They made it perfectly clear that all they were prepared to discuss was not the general question of whether and if so, how European coal and steel could be unified, but how it could be unified on the basis of handing over the control of all the national coal and iron and steel industries to some authority whose decisions would be binding, without reference to anybody else, upon all the Governments who came into the scheme.
It is perfectly clear from the speech of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who opened the Debate, as well as from the terms of the Motion, that they would not have done that themselves. If it is the case that they would have done it, then I think that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), when he replies, ought to make it perfectly clear. The suggestion that we ought to have gone in conditionally is not a new one. Conditionally, the Government were always prepared to go in. It is true that the Motion says that the conditions ought not to be those which the Government laid down, but those upon which the Dutch went in. But, from the point of view that we have been discussing, the Dutch did not go in on any conditions at all. The condition that if the result showed that federation of industries upon this basis proved to be impracticable, they would then be allowed to withdraw from it, means absolutely nothing whatsoever, because, if the resulting plan was impracticable, it could not be practised, and, therefore, there would be nothing from which to withdraw.
Surely the point is that it might well turn out in such discussions that federation upon the basis of a supra-national authority was only too practicable and undesirable. What we wanted to do, as I understand the Government case, was to go in and discuss the unification, or, at any rate, the co-ordination of these industries, without being called upon in advance to accept without further question that it should be done only in this way. What has become clear in the Debate—and that is why I called it an astonishing Debate—is that nearly every speaker on the Opposition side has

declared himself in favour of having some authority which shall control the production of steel in Europe, which shall control its distribution, which shall control its price, and which shall coordinate it in such a way as to remove from it cut-throat competition or, indeed, competition of any kind.
I suppose, therefore, that we may now expect a complete cessation of opposition from the other side of the House to the proposals to nationalise the British steel industry. It really will not do for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to go up and down the country foaming at the mouth because the Government wish to nationalise our steel industry, and then to become frantic with indignation in the House because the Government are reluctant to internationalise it. Once it is conceded that it would be a good thing—and we on this side all concede it—that in a basic industry of this kind the public interest should come first and that it can only be economical and profitable in the best sense of the word if it is a controlled, planned and directed industry, it makes nonsense of the five years opposition which the party opposite have conducted to the policies of this Government ever since the General Election of 1945, the whole purpose of which has been to make sure that we in this country do, at any rate, plan and control our basic industries in the common interest.
If the Opposition really have reached the position that it is right to do that now, not merely on the national, but on the international scale, then, at any rate, we can look forward to greater political peace in this country, and I should have thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might be anxious to take the opportunity of pointing out the facts to the electorate as early as possible. But if it is true that the Opposition have abandoned their belief in private enterprise in the steel industry, and if it is true that they are now prepared to hand over the control of this industry even internationally to some authority which shall be able to direct its activities in all countries in Western Europe, ought they not to address themselves to the further question of whether, in that event—that is to say, in the event of a great international monopoly—we can really have a great international monopoly of that


kind except under public ownership and public control?
Are the Opposition really in favour, not merely of abandoning all competition in the industry, not merely of handing it over to some authority responsible to no one, but of the authority being an authority not responsible to the public in any way? In that case, we may see the abandonment of a further line of opposition in this House. Members opposite have conducted a considerable degree of activity against the National Coal Board, the Railway Executive, or some other authority administering a nationalised basic industry, because questions cannot be asked in the House. They cannot maintain that opposition and at the same time say that they are prepared to hand over international control of iron and steel to an international authority which cannot be questioned, or be called upon to be answerable to anyone anywhere at any time for anything it does, more particularly when the industry which it is proposed to treat in this way is an industry that is the very foundation of the economic power of this country.
I think we are not asking too much in asking the Opposition to make their position a good deal clearer than it is at present on these points. The question they have never yet answered, except evasively, is whether they would have accepted the invitation to go into these discussions on the only terms on which the Government were invited to do so.

Mr. Boothby: Yes.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure that the hon. Member is speaking almost for himself, because the answer all along has been "Yes—if." The argument between the two Front Benches has been as to the nature of the conditions. It is only the hon. Member who answers "Yes" unconditionally. He may be right, but he will have to reconsider the support he has been lending to the Opposition all these years in their endeavour to prevent us from doing at home what he would like us to do abroad.
It seems to me to be quite clear that, with one or two exceptions, the House is unanimously of the opinion that we could not go in unconditionally, and that the kind of conditions the Government laid down were not, on the whole, unreasonable

conditions. What has been behind all this is not that question at all, and that is why the Debate has not been about the Motion or the Amendment, but about the general question of the Government's action and initiative in regard to the whole question of European unity.
I listened with very great sympathy to a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby). I think it is true that the Government have shown less initiative in this matter than we should have liked them to show. I believe that if we had taken a strong initiative in this direction as early as 1945 or 1946, we might have gone very much further along the road to a reasonable and sensible federation of Europe. If they had done that before the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made his speech at Fulton, it might even have had very much more important effects than even the Federation of Western Europe.
Hon. Members opposite must realise that in this criticism of the Government they have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. They are accusing the Government of having failed to take this initiative at the right time because of too narrow a devotion to the doctrinaire ideas of the Labour Party. The truth is the exact opposite. The reason they were inhibited from taking an initiative about the public ownership and control of basic industries in Europe is precisely because they felt, quite reasonably in my opinion, that they were not entitled to take a party view of this kind and were continually attuning themselves to the necessity of bi-partisan policies.
What was it that prevented them at an early stage from helping the French, the Belgians and the Germans, as well as others who were only too anxious to get a lead from Socialist Britain in those days towards the public ownership and control of their basic industries, except the feeling that we were following a bi-partisan policy and that it would be taking an unfair advantage of their position in the Government? Let hon. Members opposite not preen themselves too much about their initiation of support for the Idea of European unity. The Leader of the Opposition regards himself as the great apostle of this idea—the unifier of Europe. The right hon. Gentleman has


a distinguished and assured place in history as a saviour of Europe, first from the Tory Party, and then from Hitler. He will not, in my opinion, be known in history as the unifier of Europe. He is really the divider of Europe.
In his speech at Fulton, followed by his speech at Zurich, he claims to have foretold the policy and the system of Western international alliances in Atlantic Union, which we now have and which are, I suppose, how inevitable. The mistake he makes is to suppose that they were inevitable then. The course of conduct which has distressed all of us so much and which has brought about the present tragic division of the world into two hostile blocs, all that series of events, did not occur when the right hon. Gentleman was making his speech at Fulton, and for anything he or I know, they might not have occurred.
What the right hon. Gentleman was doing at Zurich and Fulton was not laying down the lines of a future inevitable policy, but a course of conduct which made that ultimate necessity inevitable. In other words, he was firing the first shots in the cold war. The first operative act and the declaration of the cold war came from the right hon. Gentleman in his speech at Fulton. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I believe that to be true.

Mr. Boothby: Then Stalin had nothing to do with it?

Mr. Silverman: I did not say that. [Interruption.] Anyone who does not wish to listen to me is free to do so. I hope the hon. Member will agree that while he is not compelled to listen he has no right to silence me.
I repeat that I did not say for one moment that Stalin had had nothing to do with it. Ultimately, the major share of responsibility undoubtedly lies upon the Soviet Union and its leaders in pursuing a course of conduct which has made a division of Europe, and then of the world, inevitable. What I said was that none of these things had occurred at the time when the right hon. Gentleman, in his Fulton speech, chose to regard that division of the world as inevitable before acts which made it inevitable actually took place. No one is entitled to assume that what he said and what he did, and what the rest of the world did in support and in

consequence of those speeches, had no bearing upon the history of Europe and the world which has taken place since.
The reply to Communist federation of Europe or the world, the real defence of the world against unemployment and against war, does not depend upon a federation of Europe without reference to the economic necessities of the case. The salvation of the world really depends upon its being able to establish and to practise a synthesis between the collective ownership and direction of its economic affairs and the preservation of political and civil liberty. That is precisely the synthesis we have established in this country; it is precisely the synthesis and the example, which if we had made it strongly enough and early enough and forcefully enough, Western Europe would have followed.
It is not possible to federate Europe without the collective control of our economic resources and, until we get it, we shall have to do what we can with the looser co-ordination to which the Government have committed themselves. But it seems to me that we have no need, and no right, to apologise for standing up and saying that the salvation of civilisation in our day and generation depends, and must depend, upon the triumph of the democratic Socialism we have preached for half a century.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said that he would recall the Debate from its more discursive aspects to the Motion and the Amendment which, after all, are matters which we have got to settle tonight, and I was very glad to hear him say so. When he strays into these biographical spheres, I will only venture to say that it appeared to me that he seemed to lay too much upon my burdened shoulders. I did hope that I might get away with nothing more serious than a charge of foresight; but apparently I actually set matters in train so that they occurred in accordance with my predictions. If it be so, that I have in my words such mysterious and latent power, I hope he will pay the utmost attention to what I am about to say.
Those who accept responsibility for the Motion on the Order Paper represent, according to the figures of the recent General Election, a majority of 1¾ million


of voters over those who support His Majesty's Government; and I might say that my feeling is that, on the whole, the balance of arguments have shown at least an equal superiority on our side. At the end of this Debate, I still retain the impression that the fundamental issues which have been raised have sprung largely from the mismanagement of our affairs, and that a competent administration would never have needed to thrust them upon us at this time.
The peculiar feature of this Debate is that it turns on a very small practical point, or a group of very small practical points, and at the same time raises in our minds many of the fundamental issues with which the future of a peaceful world is interwoven. When we study the White Paper of the Government's parleys with France, and consider it together with the apologia or explanation which our Ambassador at Washington has been instructed to tender to the American public, one really wonders why all this trouble has arisen between friendly Governments, and whether it could not have been avoided if there had been a Foreign Secretary fit to do his work or a Prime Minister able, amid graver preoccupations, to keep a grip on what was going on.
I did not like the attitude of the French Government in springing this large question upon us so suddenly, or in making pedantic stipulations before sitting in council with their wartime comrades. I admit I was nettled by it. I am quite sure that France would never have acted in this manner towards any British Government but the present one. But there is an explanation which I will give. It is an explanation, even if it is not an excuse, and it should be stated. As for the suddenness; the French Ministers no doubt felt that after we had upset the whole of their economy and finance by devaluation without even a word of warning, they were under no special obligations to study our convenience where other large issues were concerned. I do not say they were entitled to retaliate in this way. It is a feature of friendship to rise above and overlook such treatment on both sides.
There is also an explanation which the French may offer upon the merits of the question itself. They evidently wished the British Socialist Government to give a general affirmation in principle to the policy of a merger of the European heavy

industries, and of British goodwill towards the ending of the quarrel of the centuries between France and Germany, which in our lifetime has cost us all so dear. Why did they do this? I will tell the House. It is because they suspected that the British Socialist Government were no friends to the process of the unification of Western Europe, or to what we call the European Movement, and they had good ground for their apprehensions.
We have the record in our minds. We all remember, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) reminded us yesterday, how the Socialist Executive and Government used all their influence to prevent any members of their party attending the Conference of the European Movement at The Hague in the summer of 1948, and how many of their pledge-bound supporters went there in spite of them. Everyone will recall the attitude of the Lord President of the Council and his colleague, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Strasbourg last year. These matters are public.
What has not been made public, though it is well known and many of us have been continually informed upon it, has been the constant efforts to hamper, obstruct, restrict and diminish the powers and development of the European Assembly by the Foreign Secretary and his representatives in the meetings of the Council of Europe which they had been forced by public opinion and their own party to accept. I have been told from time to time by some who were present at these meetings that the British were consistently using their influence to delay progress and to minimise decisions. Our Foreign Secretary was on almost every occasion regarded, rightly or wrongly, as the obstacle which must be overcome. I am not concerned today with his personal motives. We all regret his illness, but the prolonged illness of a Minister and his unfortunate absence from our Debates cannot arrest the march of events or relieve us from our duty to deal with them. I am sorry that this should be so, but none of us can help it.
So I say, without hesitation, that the French Government had the feeling rooted in them by long or hard experience that the British Socialist Government and the British Socialist Foreign


Secretary were hostile to the movement towards European unity and might, therefore, attend a meeting on the Schuman Plan only for the purpose of bringing it to naught. It was on these grounds that they were led to dwell, I think unduly and with a pedantic insistence, upon agreement in a broad and general expression of accord with the great international objectives which were in view and are now before us.
But this was no excuse for the British Government piling their own prejudices on the top of French pedantry. If we had had an effective Foreign Secretary able to get through his work and a reasonable measure of goodwill between friends, comrades and allies exposed to common and increasing dangers, this curious deadlock on matters not so much of principle as of procedure and etiquette would never have occurred, and if it had occurred could easily have been smoothed away.
When the House compares the words and the sentiments of the Conservative and Liberal Motion with those of the Government Amendment, upon both of which we shall vote tonight—because we certainly cannot accept the terms of the Government Amendment even if we are not able to establish our own point of view—hon. Members will find it hard to understand, when they compare these two, how the present breakdown and deadlock have occurred. We are, however, confronted with the situation as it now lies and with the larger issues which have now been raised. These have, of course, been carefully considered on both sides and the results are embodied in the Motion and the Amendment which, I agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, are the main direct topics before us. It is upon these that we have to pronounce this evening.
If the French needed proof that the British Socialist Party and Government are hostile to the idea of a united Europe and would try to restrict and retard any international conference of which they were members, they could not find more conclusive evidence than the extraordinary pamphlet—and I have it here—issued by the National Executive of the British Labour Party and timed in such a curious manner with, I can only call it, the soiled fingers of coincidence. In this document it is stated that the British Socialists are

opposed to joining any European system which is not dominated by people of their own kidney, by other Socialists. This is what I may call the Dalton theme, plainly declared to the Labour Party Conference three years ago. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
If the United States of Europe is indeed to succeed and is to benefit its peoples, it can only fully succeed if all the countries of Western Europe commit themselves, as our electors committed themselves in 1945, to the belief that Socialism is the hope of us all.
It is this idea which the document expresses and reiterates. It amounts to a declaration that if Europe is to unite and Britain is to play any part in such a union, it can only be on a one-party basis—and that party the Socialists.
This is a squalid attitude at a time of present stress and I should like to remind the House that this attitude is adopted at a time when Socialism is losing ground all over the free world outside the Iron Curtain, at a time when one cannot find any other Socialist Government in the British Commonwealth or in the English-speaking world or in Western Europe, apart from Scandinavia, which has a tale of its own to tell and is subject to many special factors. For instance, the first thing the Socialist Prime Minister of Norway did, on being returned to power with a majority—with an effective majority—was to say that there would be no more nationalisation. We have had something like the same language used here, but there is the great difference that an effective majority does not lie behind the Government.
We are invited by the Government to bind ourselves to what the "Manchester Guardian" has well called "insular Socialism" and to make a party distinction between us and the countries which do not take our view. There is, of course, one exception—the outstanding, mighty, capitalist, free enterprise United States. That is the exception. But then, of course, they are paying us the heavy subsidies upon which the Socialists' claim that they are able to maintain full employment is founded. But, apart from this important exception, it would be a lonely pilgrimage upon which we are to be led. The Socialist Party, which assumes this self-opinionated position—I might almost say this arrogant position—has just been shown to be in a minority in Great Britain. It has had to modify


or suspend its whole policy of nationalisation and is now looking about for a new version of the Socialist theme—I see the Lord President is out of the House, perhaps even engaged in this very task—upon which to found their class warfare. At home the Socialists are in full retreat. Abroad they claim to impose their ideology on nations and societies whom, after bitter experience, have cast it off.
What plainer proof could the Government give of their hostility to European union than the appointment of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer—I like to keep the former Chancellor and the present both in view at once: both have rendered their contributions to the state of our national finances; both aspire now to lay their skilful hands upon our foreign affairs—but what plainer proof could the Government give than to appoint the right hon. Gentleman to lead their half of the delegation to Strasbourg, in full view of the declaration which he has made, and to send him as their representative? I say that that is a grimace. I had thought of using the word "outrage," but, on subsequent consideration, I thought that the more moderate word would cover the point in its correct proportions. I ask even now that this step should not be taken. If the Government persist, it is they who will suffer in the decline of their influence in Europe; but we shall all suffer, too.
In this Debate we have had the usual jargon about "the infra-structure of a supra-national authority." The original authorship is obscure; but it may well be that these words "infra" and "supra" have been introduced into our current political parlance by the band of intellectual highbrows who are naturally anxious to impress British labour with the fact that they learned Latin at Winchester. Although we may not relish the words, no one will wish to deny this old-school-tie contingent their modest indulgence in class self-consciousness.
As I listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, I could not help feeling very sorry that our relations with France have been reduced to this long legalistic argument, taking point after point with professional skill in order to reach and justify a deadlock. I reject the Chancellor's claim that at no time in our history the understanding

between this country and France has been greater than it is today. It would hardly be possible to state that reverse of the truth with more precision.
But what was really astonishing was the manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman based the breakdown upon the Documents 12, 13 and 14 of the White Paper, and omitted all similar mention of Document 10. The brilliant rejoinder of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), exposed this glaring oversight—as we must hope it was—for in their Memorandum of 30th May (that is, Document 10) the French Government stated specifically the words which have been read out to the House, but which are so important that I must read them again.
The special position"—
say the French—
in these negotiations which the British Government wishes to preserve is justified in their Memorandum by the intention, said to be held by the French Government, of asking, as a prior condition, for full participation in the discussions, for an undertakng to pool coal and steel resources, and to set up an authority with certain sovereign powers.
4. As their representatives have informed the British representatives orally, the French Govrnment wish particularly to confirm once more that these are not their intentions. As has already been made clear in the French Memorandum of 9th May, there will be no commitment except by the signature of a treaty between the States concerned and its parliamentary ratification.
Here certainly was the point when the British Government might have safely agreed to enter the conference.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor has put to us the question. What would you have done? We reply that once we had the assurance conveyed in Document 10, that there would be
no commitment except by the signature of a treaty between the States concerned and its parliamentary ratification
we should not have hesitated to attend the conference, and we should have replied in the same sort of manner as the Dutch, and in terms similar to those which are embodied in the Motion on which we are going to vote tonight.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman later proceeded to draw an alarming picture of what might happen to us if we accepted the principle of a supra-national high authority which


… could cause a whole coalfield or steel centre to go out of production without any social or political responsibility for their action. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 26th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 1942.]
Surely, this is one of the points we could have raised at the conference in a decisive manner? To win the war we agreed to put our armies under S.H.A.E.F., a great Anglo-American organisation that was for the tactical and limited purposes prescribed. No one would ever have suggested that General Eisenhower should have had the power to say what units of the British Army should be suppressed or disbanded, or how they should be raised or remodelled, or anything like it. All these remained questions within the control of the autonomous sovereign States which were willing to agree to a larger unity for certain well defined functional—I use the "functional" because it is coming into use—functional purposes. Surely, this is one of the points we could have urged, and even have made conditional upon our agreement to any final scheme.
It is simply darkening counsel to pretend, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did, that by participating in the discussion, under the safeguards and reservations I have read, we could have been committed against our will to anything of this nature. I would add, to make my answer quite clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that if he asked me, "Would you agree to a supranational authority which has the power to tell Great Britain not to cut any more coal or make any more steel, but to grow tomatoes instead?" I should say, without hesitation, the answer is "No." But why not be there to give the answer?
Nothing is said about the method of voting. We know nothing about the method by which voting power will be allotted to the different members of any supra-national authority which may be set up. But it is quite certain we should not agree to become members of it—and that we should have every right to disagree—if our great preponderance in coal and steel production did not receive full recognition. Then there is the question of the right to terminate such an agreement. That is surely a matter we could have looked at after discussion. Finally, there is the question of whether there could be two grades of members of such a body—full members and associate

members. That is a matter also which should be borne in mind. I cannot conceive how such issues would not have benefited by any conference if we were there to shape and guide it. If they did not, if we did not succeed, our safeguards are overwhelming; we should not be bound in honour or good faith to accept adverse decisions on matters which we regarded as impracticable, but we would be the judges.
But that is not all. Even if the Ministers or representatives taking part in the conference were too weak or too facile to stand up for our vital interests and rights, even if they reached agreement round a conference table nothing would be settled until Parliament had ratified the resultant conclusions. This is what the French say in their Document 10 of 30th May. By becoming a member of this conference on the conditions imposed by the French Government we should in no way abrogate the full rights of power of the House of Commons to judge the final result—to judge as a whole and not as a party or as supporters or opponents of a Government. The power of this House would be absolutely undiminished.
If we attend the conference we can use all our influence and all our arguments, and if these are not accepted we are not committed in any way to agreement, and there would be no agreement so far as we are concerned. If, however, our delegates agree, as I have said, Parliament has still the full power to judge and to decide when the case is laid before it after it has all been thrashed out. There is the question: "To be there or not to be there," that is the question on which we shall vote tonight. It seems to me that we run no risk by being there, but let me examine some of the risks of our not being there.
The Prime Minister is soon to reply, when his own political creed and record are, if I may say so, in a sad plight. We all remember how before the war he said that national patriotism and national armaments were wrong. His words are upon record, but I will not trouble the House with them unless he wishes me to do so. In this faith, however misguided, in the years before the war the Prime Minister led the Socialist Party into the Lobby against every Estimate to strengthen, or even maintain our Armed


Forces; and only four months before the explosion he urged his followers to oppose National Service. When in later years—a year ago in fact—the Prime Minister was taxed with this, be offered the defence that he would gladly have voted for armaments and conscription on an international basis, a collective basis, under the League of Nations, but he would not associate himself with any form of national armaments or re-armament in any way. This is what he said on 16th March last in this House:
This party"—
that is, his party—
never opposed the proper re-armament of this country. No, my speeches are on record in this matter. We were always prepared to support a system of collective security."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 1391.]
But no system of collective security existed, as he knew well, and as we learned only too soon.
This is the same leader of the Socialist Party who now, as Prime Minister, comes forward, or is persuaded to come forward, as the champion of the extreme insular view, which is inconsistent with the trend of what is going on, and also inconsistent with much that he himself has done. He seeks to win for himself and his party popular applause by strutting around as a Palmerstonian jingo. This diversity, in relation to the same story and the same issues, will not win for him or those who follow him any measure of public esteem.
Let me ask him a specific question, and I direct his attention to this document which I hold in my hand. He may have seen it. Has he read what may be called the "Dalton Brown Paper"? It was issued before he made his first statement in the House on the Schuman Plan. Had he read it, or had he not? I quite understand his embarrassment. If he says he had read it, his first statement in Parliament was inconsistent with it. If he says he had not read it, he might well be accused of throwing an unfair burden upon his colleague. There is also a third aspect which I am sure he will not consider irrelevant, namely: What is the truth? What is the fact?
It is no use for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that these are purely domestic party matters, and that the House of Commons has no right to ask questions about a declaration by the Labour Party Executive, or the Prime Minister's attitude

towards it. So powerful a body as the Labour Party Executive, of which the Prime Minister and all his principal colleagues are active members, a body which has a recognised part in the constitution of the Labour Party, cannot be held to be outside the purview of the House of Commons; it is a living part of the way we are governed, and of the means by which we are governed. The Prime Minister cannot dissociate himself from it. We do not know now what his position is, but I ask him this simple question: Did he read this document before he made his statement on the Schuman Plan to the House of Commons, or did he not? If the right hon. Gentleman does not answer, or dare not answer, then he will be the sufferer in reputation. Apart from being a Prime Minister he is a public man, and I doubt if there is any Member in this House who, if asked a question of this kind, would shrink from giving a plain and simple answer.
I venture, from long experience, to offer some advice to the House, which is naturally perturbed by the far-reaching issues which have been aroused in our minds, and which we have to discuss in the inevitably unpleasant atmosphere surrounding or between two fierce General Elections. It is not within our power, nor is it our task this evening, to settle all those vast questions of world destiny and Britain's part in it. We must keep them in our minds so far as we can perceive them, but we have not got to pronounce judgment upon them all. We have to deal with the definite practical issues put before us in the Motion on the Order Paper. This can only be a step, and a carefully-guarded step, forward in what the great majority on both sides of the House believe to be the right direction.
We ought under all effective safeguards to take our part and use our influence in this forthcoming discussion, provided, first, that we wish it good success, and secondly, though no less important, that we reserve our full freedom to judge the final results. We cannot do that now. We do not know any of the details, or how they will emerge from a careful examination. We have only a general outline of what is proposed as a basis for discussion. Every Member should ask himself two simple practical questions: "Do I wish to see the unity of Western


Europe advanced?" and anyhow, apart from that, "Had we not better take part in the conference subject to the reservations which the Dutch have made?" These are the issues before us tonight.
More than a month ago when I addressed the Scottish Unionist Conference at Edinburgh we knew even less than we do now. Nevertheless, the course I should advise the Conservative Party to follow seemed clear. I will venture to read to the House what I said, because at that time I had no idea that this would become a controversial party issue. I hope that the House will forgive me reading this, but I think that it is relevant:
While the Schuman proposal is right in principle, we must nevertheless consider carefully the way in which Great Britain can participate most effectively in such a larger grouping of European industry. We must be careful that it does not carry with it a lowering of British wages and standards of life and labour. We must, I feel, assert the principle of levelling up and not of levelling down. We are all surely proud of the British steel industry which plays so large a part in our export trade. The terms on which we could combine with Continental nations must be carefully studied. If we were to destroy or even impair the efficiency of our steel industry by nationalisation, we might find ourselves at a serious disadvantage compared with Continental countries which are free from Socialist abuses. We must be reassured on these and other points while welcoming cordially the whole principle and spirit of what is proposed.
That is what I said, and that is what, broadly speaking, I stand by now, and it is what I ask that we shall vote unitedly upon this evening.
We are asked: How can the Conservative Party reconcile its opposition to the nationalisation of steel and yet give any countenance to the principle of internationalisation in a European system? It is a fair question. The answer is that we oppose the nationalisation of British steel because we wish to see it remain in the competent hands of those who under free enterprise have raised it to its present magnificent position among our industries. In our opposition to nationalisation we have never objected to a proper degree of Government supervision; indeed we have always insisted upon it. What we have opposed, and shall continue to oppose, is State ownership and management—or mismanagement as it has proved so far—of the industry.
Under the Schuman proposals, ownership remains unaffected. We cannot see any objection in principle to a wider measure of international co-ordination if that proves practicable and in accordance with our essential interests. We see no reason why the problems of the British steel industry should not be discussed in common with the problems of the other European steel industries, and we have good hope that if this is done, an association mutually advantageous and acceptable may be created. But at any rate it will be far better for us to take part in the disussions than to stand outside and let events drift without us. That is the view of the present leaders of the British steel industry, and I am sure that it is a sensible and practical one.
The Socialist Government, as their Amendment sets forth, speak of their desire to follow closely the conversations from outside and they welcome the proposal which M. Schuman has made. The French Government have promised to keep us fully informed. But what is that compared with taking part in the discussions and influencing them in the powerful way which we could have done having regard to our preponderating individual stake. There is a great difference between being outside a conference and being perhaps a leading member of one. There may well be a certain resentment against the Government which is thought by the others to have wilfully refused under all safeguards even to sit at the table.
Here are the six Powers talking all these matters over among themselves with the United States beckoning encouragement to them from across the ocean—[Interruption.] Nothing has done more harm in the United States than the publication in this country of this document—and Britain, although absolutely safe from being committed, finding excuses, elaborate excuses, to keep out of the conference altogether and thus perhaps spoil the hopes of a general settlement. The French have a saying "Les absents ont toujours tort." I do not know whether they learn French at Winchester.
There is certainly a risk of all these matters of great consequence being discussed in our absence. We have no means of intervening from moment to moment. New difficulties may be springing up in


our absence, as we sit here. All kinds of draft conclusions or draft proposals may be presented which would never have seen the light of day had we been able to use our influence on the spot beforehand. Perhaps resentment is too strong an expression. Let me call it "a fellow feeling" among those who are there against the one who is out.
Continental wages are lower than our own. If they were averaged out on the basis of those who were in, it might well increase in a marked degree the competitive undercutting power in the exports of all these countries. Whereas our influence at the table might well have been sufficient to turn the balance in favour of the British standard, it seems to me contrary to the interests of the British coalminers and steel workers that they should never have been allowed to put their case for a levelling-up on the Continent instead of a levelling-down.
There is another reason why the boycotting of the conference is to be regretted. The absence of Britain deranges the balance of Europe. I am all for a reconciliation between France and Germany, and for receiving Germany back into the European family, but this implies, as I have always insisted, that Britain and France should in the main act together so as to be able to deal on even terms with Germany, which is so much stronger than France alone. Without Britain, the coal and steel pool in Western Europe must naturally tend to be dominated by Germany, who will be the most powerful member. This point was made by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) last night.
I ask both sides of the House to consider whether it is really a wise policy for us to pursue at this particular moment of European recovery. It is difficult to imagine any course more inconsiderate to European interests in general, and to British interests in particular, than that into which the Government are forcing, not only the House as a whole, but their own party.
I have spoken of this document—this Brown Paper. There was, however, in the Socialist pamphlet one declaration with which I wholeheartedly agree. I mean the declaration against Europe becoming a Third Force between America

and Russia and creating a "neutral geographical bloc." This was formerly the view of many of the Socialists in the days when they condemned my Fulton speech in 1946. I am glad to read this recantation. I trust the educational process may continue.
I should myself regard the neutralisation of Germany or Western Germany, still more of France and the rest of the six Powers now meeting together in Paris, as a disaster second only to actual war. It would simply mean that not only Western Germany but the European States in the neutral zone would be undermined and overcome one by one and bit by bit exactly as we have seen Czechoslovakia devoured before our eyes. The question which both the pamphleteers and we should ask ourselves tonight is whether British reluctance to assert herself within a movement towards European unity will not bring about just this very danger of a neutral geographical bloc, and whether we, by standing out, may not become responsible for bringing about the very situation the Socialist Executive in their pamphlet so rightly fear.
I was deeply moved by the decisive gesture which France made in the Schuman Plan for an effective reconciliation with Germany on the basis of such a measure of pooling heavy industries, which would, if developed, make impossible a renewal of war between these two nations. When I asked four years ago at Zurich that France should take Germany by the hand and lead her back into the European family, I could not hope that such an historic event would have come to pass so soon.
It would be quite fair to ask me whether I should have welcomed this event even if there were no such thing as this Russian menace, or the Soviet Government or the Communist movement in many lands. I should say, "Yes, certainly." The unity of France and Germany, whether direct or in a larger continental grouping is a merciful and glorious forward step towards the revival of Europe and the peace of the world. The fact that there is a grave Soviet and Communist menace only adds to its value and urgency. Here surely we can find agreement on all sides of the House.
No one can say with justice that we are acting and feeling in this way in prejudice to the interests of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Everyone knows that that stands first in all our thoughts. First, there is the Empire and Commonwealth; secondly, the fraternal association of the English-speaking world; and thirdly, not in rank or status but in order, the revival of united Europe as a vast factor in the preserving of what is left of the civilisation and culture of the free world. When one hears Socialist orators claim that they are the champions of the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations and remembers that they did not even take the trouble to tell the Commonwealth what was going on, it is impossible not to repress a feeling of scorn.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): To what is the right hon. Gentleman referring when he says we did not take the trouble to tell the Commonwealth what was going on?

Mr. Churchill: I am talking about the Schuman Plan.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The nations of the Commonwealth were kept fully informed.

Mr. Churchill: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that they were consulted upon the Government's refusal to accede to the Schuman invitation?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman said that they were right outside altogether, and that we have informed nobody. Anyone with experience of Commonwealth affairs knows that in all these matters the Commonwealth countries are kept fully informed, and any point which they wish to raise they do raise with the other members of the Commonwealth. In a matter which primarily concerns one member of the Commonwealth they are kept fully informed and they may raise points on that if they wish.

Mr. Churchill: I must go into this a little bit, because I did not get the correct impression. I have only got in my mind what took place in the House. I understood that the Schuman Plan came as a surprise, and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister at short notice made a statement in this House, in which he spoke of it in welcoming terms. I do

not know, but I have no doubt that the Dominions wished to raise some points. Before the Prime Minister took up the position he has taken up, I doubt very much if they had had any opportunity expressing any opinion upon the course which events had taken.
When I was asked at the Atlantic Conference in 1941 by Mr. Roosevelt to agree that Imperial Preference should be eliminated, I said at once that we should never be able to take such a decision without consulting the Dominions themselves and this would take time. The argument was effective, among other reasons, because of the time factor in issuing a communiqué, about which the President was so eager. I cannot think of a better argument which the Government could have used to our French friends if they wished to have more time to consider their attitude than to say that they must consult on these matters with the Dominions by sending a telegram, affording them an opportunity to give a considered opinion. That it does not seem to have occurred to them is only another example of the extraordinary lack of efficiency with which our affairs are now conducted.
There are still one or two points which I must mention. The hon. Member for Coventry, East, last night asked the Tory Party whether they were in favour of the federal union of Western Europe. Such a tremendous step as the federal union of Europe as something like a United States of Europe is not a matter which rests with us to decide. It is primarily one for the peoples of Europe. In our European Movement we have worked with federalists, and we have always made it clear that, though they are moving along the same road, we are not committed to their conclusions. Personally, I have always deprecated in public our becoming involved at this stage in all the tangles and intricacies of rigid constitution-making, which appeals so strongly to a certain type of mind. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Coventry, East, should have marred an able speech, as he so often does, by a gross misstatement when he says that European union
is run and financed by federalists."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1950; Vol. 476. c. 2043.]
That is quite untrue, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for


Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), who spoke earlier this afternoon, dealt effectively with that.

Mr. Crossman: If that is untrue, then I wish to withdraw it.

Mr. Churchill: Certainly, so far as the European Movement is concerned—and I took some trouble to make inquiries about it when I heard what the hon. Gentleman had said about it—they rely upon voluntary contributions from England and America and they have not had any difficulty in finding the necessary funds.
I am told that the difficulties of European federation are increasingly realised upon the Continent, and that it is one of the reasons why what I call "functional" associations, like this proposed merger of the heavy industries, are being sought. But the question that we have to decide for ourselves—and there is certainly plenty of time for mature consideration of it—is, what association should Britain have with the Federal Union of Europe if such a thing should come to pass in the course of time?
It has not got to be decided today, but I shall give, with all humility, a plain answer. I cannot conceive that Britain would be an ordinary member of a Federal Union limited to Europe in any period which can at present be foreseen. We should in my opinion favour and help forward all developments on the Continent which arise naturally from a removal of barriers, from the process of reconciliation, and blessed oblivion of the terrible past, and also from our common dangers in the future and present. Although a hard-and-fast concrete federal constitution for Europe is not within the scope of practical affairs, we should help, sponsor and aid in every possible way the movement towards European unity. We should seek steadfastly for means to become intimately associated with it.
In this, we are supported by many of the leading statesmen in all parties in all the Commonwealth countries: Mr. Menzies and Mr. Evatt in Australia, Mr. Fraser in New Zealand, General Smuts—for whose recovery we pray—and Mr. MacKenzie King and Mr. St. Laurent in Canada. All have warmly advocated a forward movement towards European unity and have not, so far as I am aware, assigned any rigid or fixed limits to it.
With our position as the centre of the British Empire and Commonwealth and with our fraternal association with the United States in the English-speaking world, we could not accept full membership of a federal system of Europe. We must find our path to world unity through the United Nations organisation, which I hope will be re-founded one day upon three or four regional groups, of which a united Europe should certainly be one. By our unique position in the world, Great Britain has an opportunity, if she is worthy of it, to play an important and possibly a decisive part in all the three larger groupings of the Western democracies. Let us make sure that we are worthy of it.
The whole movement of the world is towards an inter-dependence of nations. We feel all around us the belief that it is our best hope. If independent, individual sovereignty is sacrosanot and inviolable, how is it that we are all wedded to a world organisation? It is an ideal to which we must subscribe. How is it that we have undertaken this immense obligation for the defence of Western Europe, involving ourselves as we have never done before in the fortunes of countries not protected by the waves and tides of the Channel? How is it that we accepted, and under the present Government eagerly sought, to live upon the bounty of the United States, thus becoming financially dependent upon them? It can only be justified and even tolerated because on either side of the Atlantic it is felt that inter-dependence is part of our faith and the means of our salvation.
No one can contend that sovereignty will be affected by our participation in the discussions in Paris which are the subject of our Motion and the Amendment tonight. They are well protected by the cumulative safeguards which I mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, there is a great moral and idealistic issue which, though irrelevant to our immediate purpose, has been stirred by the discussions which have taken place. We are asked in a challenging way: "Are you prepared to part with any degree of national sovereignty in any circumstances for the sake of a larger synthesis?" My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, with his prolonged experience in foreign affairs, has faced the issue, hypothetical though it be, plainly


and squarely. The Conservative and Liberal Parties say, without hesitation, that we are prepared to consider, and if convinced to accept, the abrogation of national sovereignty, provided that we are satisfied with the conditions and the safeguards.
Nay, I will go further and say that for the sake of world organisation we would even run risks and make sacrifices. We fought alone against tyranny for a whole year, not purely from national motives. It is true that our lives depended upon our doing so, but we fought the better because we felt with conviction that it was not only our own cause but a world cause for which the Union Jack was kept flying in 1940 and 1941. The soldier who laid down his life, the mother who wept for her son, and the wife who lost her husband, got inspiration or comfort, and felt a sense of being linked with the universal and the eternal by the fact that we fought for what was precious not only for ourselves but for mankind. The Conservative and Liberal Parties declare that national sovereignty is not inviolable, and that it may be resolutely diminished for the sake of all the men in all the lands finding their way home together.

KOREAN REPUBLIC (INVASION)

6.25 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): May I, Mr. Speaker, with your leave and the leave of the House, interrupt Business in order to make a statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This morning His Majesty's Government were informed by the United States Government of the terms of a statement which the United States Government intended to make later in the day on the situation in Korea. This statement has in fact just been released for publication in the U.S.A. It reads as follows:
In Korea the Government forces, which were armed to prevent border raids and to preserve internal security, were attacked by invading forces from North Korea. The Security Council of the United Nations called upon the invading troops to cease hostilities and to withdraw to the 38th parallel. This they have not done, but on the contrary have pressed the attack. The Security Council called upon all Members of the United Nations to render every assistance to the United Nations in the execution of this resolution.

In these circumstances I have ordered United States air and sea forces to give the Korean Government troops cover and support.
The attack upon Korea makes it plain beyond all doubt that Communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer independent nations and will now use armed invasion and war. It has defied the orders of the Security Council of the United Nations issued to preserve international peace and security. In these circumstances the occupation of Formosa by Communist forces would be a direct threat to the security of the Pacific area and to United States forces performing their lawful and necessary functions in that area.
Accordingly I have ordered the Seventh Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa. As a corollary of this action. I am calling upon the Chinese Government on Formosa to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland. The Seventh Fleet will see that this is done. The determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.
I have also directed that United States Forces in the Philippines be strengthened and that military assistance to the Philippine Government be accelerated. I have similarly directed acceleration in the furnishing of military assistance to the Forces of France and the associated States in Indo-China and the despatch of a military mission to provide close working relations with those Forces.
I know that all Members of the United Nations will consider carefully the consequences of this latest aggression in Korea in defiance of the Charter of the United Nations. A return to the rule of force in international affairs would have far-reaching effects. The United States will continue to uphold the rule of law. I have instructed Ambassador Austin, as the representative of the United States to the Security Council, to report these steps to the Council.
I should add that the United Kingdom representative on the Security Council has been authorised to support, at today's meeting of the Security Council, a resolution which I understand is being introduced by the United States representative and which recommends that the Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack.
The situation is of undoubted gravity, but I am certain that there will be no disagreement, after our bitter experiences in the past 35 years, that the salvation of all is dependent on prompt and effective measures to arrest aggression wherever it may occur, using for this purpose the international machinery which the peace-loving nations have set up for this very purpose. The fact is


that the authorities in Northern Korea have invaded the territory of the Government of the Republic of Korea. This is naked aggression and it must be checked. We can only hope that all concerned will recognise this simple fact. If they do, there is hope for the future.
In view of the situation Sir Gladwyn Jebb is flying out immediately to New York to take up his post as permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations.
I felt that the House should have that information at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Churchill: Naturally, I only intervene for the purpose of expressing our thanks to the Prime Minister for making us acquainted with these grave matters and the sense of unity which dominates the whole House when questions of this gravity seem to touch the principles of freedom and law for which we stand.

Mr. Clement Davies: Mr. Speaker, will you allow—?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have questions at the moment because, after all, we are in the middle of a Debate.

Mr. Davies: I only wanted to re-echo what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and to say that the whole House is behind the Prime Minister.

SCHUMAN PLAN

6.30 p.m.

The Prime Minister: May I ask the leave of the House to speak again? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We have had a very interesting Debate. I thought that there was, as is so often the case, a very great contrast between the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and the speech of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwich and Leamington dealt with this as a great issue and applied his mind to the real matters at stake, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford made it mainly an occasion for a party political attack.
He started off by trying to do his utmost to make bad blood between this Government and the French Government. He suggested that the French were resentful over devaluation. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, as he has been Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in the matter of devaluation one cannot give long notice. As a matter of fact the French understood it perfectly well and we gave them 48 hours' notice, which was all that could have been given in the circumstances. It is quite untrue to suggest that there has been constant friction and bad feeling. It is utterly and entirely untrue, as Ministers know who have been in contact with French Ministers constantly.
It is also untrue that we are suspected of being no friends of European unity. We have been working for European unity and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, a vast amount of work has been done to build up that unity; and that work does not merely mean making speeches but means the difficult working out of concrete plans with representatives of a great many nations.
Then the right hon. Gentleman tries to make ill blood between us and other members of the Commonwealth by suggesting that we have not given them all the information. They have not made those complaints, and the French have not made those complaints. It is the right hon. Gentleman who makes those complaints.

Mr. Churchill: The Prime Minister has contradicted me very severely because I said that he did not consult the Dominions—

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): Withdraw.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member should wait until he grows up before he tells me to withdraw. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT so that he can see what he said.

The Prime Minister: I said:
I do not think there was time for any consultation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 43.]
That was when I made my first statement in the House. There could not have been any consultation because all I said was


that we welcomed this initiative. What need for consultation was there on that?

Mr. Eden: Why did the right hon. Gentleman say that? He did say that. I remember the answer. The answer is in the recollection of the House. I remember the Prime Minister saying quite clearly that there was no time for consultation. That is why we looked up the quotation.

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford said was that we had not informed the Commonwealth. The implication all through—it is not the first time we have had it—is that we have deliberately kept the Commonwealth in the dark in these matters. As a matter of fact, we have carried out to the full the usual methods of consultation.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman has not.

The Prime Minister: We have. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the usual method of consultation is that full information is given; there are meetings with Commonwealth representatives and there is a full discussion, and that is exactly what has been done in this case. They have been kept fully informed.
That was the start of the right hon. Gentleman's speech of which a good deal was taken up not with dealing with the real issue which is before the House, for the real issue is whether or not we ought to have accepted certain principles which were to be embodied in a treaty prior to going into discussion. We had a great deal of excellent rhetoric on the need for getting together with other nations. That is the common view of all of us in this House. We have had quotations of various kinds of what has been done in that way, and both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition have talked about some relinquishment of sovereignty.
It is quite true that in the world as it is placed today it is ridiculous to try to stand for the absolute sovereignty of the individual State, and no one has contended in that sense more often than have I and my colleagues here; but the question arises, when there is to be a surrender of sovereignty, to what body that

surrender should be made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington gave a number of instances, which I have carefully looked over. There were O.E.E.C., the Atlantic Charter and U.N.O. and many others. I entirely agree that in all those instances there is an infringement of the old idea of absolute sovereignty, but in every instance that surrender is made to a responsible body, a body of people responsible to Parliaments, not to an irresponsible body appointed by no one and responsible to no one. That is the special need for the use of that word, which I do not like particularly, but it does indicate the difference between what is international and what is "supra-national."
We have always been willing, and are now, to enter into these international arrangements, but the point of this plan was that it was something entirely different from the international arrangements. This was to set up a supra-national authority. And it was of the essence of M. Schuman's plan that on entering into these discussions there should be an unequivocal acceptance of this principle. It is all very well to say that we can put in safeguards. I notice that everybody who has suggested that there should be acceptance has said, "With the necessary safeguards." But it is really making nonsense of an acceptance to think that one can accept a principle and then whittle it away until there is no principle left.
Now we have been learning just what is the intention and idea of this supranational authority. It requires to be looked at closely because it means that we are to hand over to the control of a number of appointed persons the two basic industries of this country. And those persons are not to be responsible to Governments, they are to be independent persons, and as far as I can make out from what I have seen of the plan coming through, they have no responsibility to Governments. Apparently the only time they may be responsible to anybody is at a meeting of a collection of members of legislatures, once a year. If the plan is to work, it means that those people are given authority by a majority to make decisions that are mandatory upon those who go in for this scheme—

Mr. Churchill: What is this plan of which the right hon Gentleman speaks? [An HON. MEMBER: "It comes from


Paris."] It is all very well but, if this matter is to be raised at this last moment, I must ask that the House should be informed a little more clearly about this document.

The Prime Minister: Certainly. There was a preliminary account given in "The Times" today which was an advance of what is being given out by the French Government to the Press outlining the main lines of this plan.

Mr. Churchill: By the French Government?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the French Government.

Mr. Churchill: How is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the French Government are committed to it and that it is not the report of the experts or civil servants made to the French Government, which, in any case, is only one of the six Powers concerned?

The Prime Minister: As I am informed, this is put out by the French Government—

Mr. Quintin Hogg: There is not one.

The Prime Minister: I cannot help that. This is a Government document which has been put out. I will not go into it in detail. I was only saying that if one is judging this plan it is not fair to suggest that this is not what is intended. It is no good saying, "This is a principle" then cutting it down. This is the intention. Whether it is right or wrong, I do not know, and I am not prepared to say at the moment, but one has to look at it to see what is the intention, and that is the intention of this plan. It is to act by a majority and it is to have mandatory powers over industries in these countries.

Mr. Churchill: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Churchill: It is all right, the Prime Minister is not limited to 7 o'clock. Is not this only the plan put forward by M. Monnet and his experts to the French Government? Have not the French Government reserved to themselves freedom to amend or correct it? Are the French Government themselves—[HON. MEM-

BERS: "Oh!"] Do not hon. Members opposite want to know? Are not the French Government themselves only one of the six nations that have been talking over these matters during the week, every one of whom is entitled to put forward a version of his own, as we should have been had we been there?

The Prime Minister: This is the working document put forward as the principle of the plan which is to be embodied in a treaty, and that is the principle which has to be accepted.

Mr. Churchill: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: But that is the principle. We cannot get away from the principle. The principle is not a principle of internationalism; it is a principle of the supra-national authority. This is the point which is really at issue: whether we should have accepted that principle before going in for discussions. We were perfectly willing to discuss. We welcomed this initiative on the part of the French Government. Here let me say to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington that I think the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that this initiative could only have come from the French. The right hon. Gentleman rather suggested we had lagged behind and should have made it ourselves. Obviously, however, it was one which should have come, and did come, from the French in trying to settle this age-long Franco-German dispute. We said, "We will go in and discuss anything you like, but we cannot accept this principle until we have seen how it works out."
I think that was perfectly reasonable. There was a great deal of discussion. We offered to go fully into discussions with Ministers but the fact was that this was the key to the scheme and, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not believe he would have got them to depart from that scheme. It was not, as he suggests, a matter of prejudice against a Socialist Government; it was a definite conception of principles by which they believed this international body, this initiative, could be built up.
The plain issue which faces the House is whether the Government were right or wrong in saying, "We will discuss, but we cannot accept this principle blindly."


The right hon. Gentleman and his friends have put forward a suggestion that we should have taken the same formula as the Dutch put forward. There, again, that is an exception; accepting the principle but saying that afterwards, if it is not practicable, the principle will be thrown over. I do not believe that is the right way to go into a conference of this kind. I believe that it is generally recognised—and I am quite sure it is recognised by our French friends and appears perfectly clearly in the White Paper—that there was this difference of opinion, and we were not asked to gloss it over and go in in the camouflaged way suggested, accepting it when we did not accept it, with power to run out. I think that would have had the worst possible effect.
The right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention away from the question before the House to some discussion of the document called "European Unity." I declined to answer questions in this House with regard to that document because it is not the duty of a Minister to answer questions on something which is not within his field of responsibility. I have sat in this House quite a long time and I have known even Conservative Governments to have annual conferences and to pass resolutions of all kinds. I have never heard it suggested that if a Minister or member of the Conservative Party were present he should have to get up in the House and answer for that conference.

Mr. Churchill: I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he approved it. I only asked him whether he had read it or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh. no."] Yes, read it or not. Surely he need not shrink from imparting that simple piece of information?

The Prime Minister: I was not referring specifically to the right hon. Gentleman. This was an occasion when he was not present. He went off on the question of a Debate the first time it was mentioned, but later the matter was taken up by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and others. [Interruption.] I am quite prepared to say that, as a member of the party executive, I am a party to this document and take my share of responsibility and that, of course, I have read it. It is equally true that, as

it happened, I was away for a week at Whitsun and I did not know the date of publication, and that when it came out it did surprise me as coming out then. But these things do happen.
This document, as has been made perfectly clear, is an expression of Labour Party policy. It raised a storm, especially with the people who had not read it; they got excerpts. It suffered, perhaps, from a misfortune in which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will sympathise with us, because it obtained the support of Lord Beaverbrook. Because of that, it was at once condemned as an isolationist document by people who had never read it. It is not an isolationist document in any way whatever; it is a fair and balanced document. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman himself, in that more eloquent way which he commands, was summing up a good deal of the document in pointing out as against those who thought that there should be a third force, or European union, separate from others, that we were part of a larger group, that we were part of the Atlantic community, and that there were these various connections. He mentioned U.N.O., the Commonwealth and Europe, which had to be brought together. The document does that. I do not find that there is anything whatever at variance with my statement.
I explained in the Debate in January, 1949, I think, when a somewhat similar point was raised, that it has never been the position of this Government or of the Labour Party that we should deal solely with Socialist Governments. On the contrary, we have actually dealt with others, but that does not prevent us from saying that we should prefer other Governments to those any more than it prevents the right hon. Gentleman opposite from hailing with glee the fact that there are some Governments which if they are not called Conservative, at least are not actually Socialist. There are very few Conservative Governments in the world today. They almost always take another name, and I understand that the party opposite would like to do the same. That, I think, is a matter which Lord Woolton is still considering.

Mr. Eden: "A rose by any other name. …"

Mr. Churchill: You cannot give a Socialist another name.

The Prime Minister: All that was a matter of prejudice, but it does not in the least take away from the fact that what we have to discuss today is whether the Government were right or wrong in not accepting this principle blindly before entering into discussions. No one has suggested accepting without conditions. This thing was put to us to accept. We made various suggestions. We were asked to accept. I do not know what the real suggestion now is by the right hon. Gentleman. Does he suggest that we should now offer to go in on the Dutch terms? I do not know whether that would be accepted or not, but it is certainly not acceptable—

Mr. Churchill: I certainly think we should have gone in on the Dutch terms or some variants that were found agreeable. I see no reason at all to alter the Dutch terms.

The Prime Minister: That means that the right hon. Gentleman thinks we should have accepted this principle. The principle embodied in this is the handing over of the basic industries of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, it is.

Mr. Churchill: We are absolutely safeguarded against having in any way to hand over the basic industries of this country. If the terms for which the Dutch asked were quite acceptable, we could have been a member and taken part in these matters on the same terms and conditions with very great advantage all round.

The Prime Minister: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman did not set out in his Motion what was the actual Dutch reservation, because the actual Dutch reservation was accepting the principle but with the proviso that if they did not like it or found it impossible, they could then throw the principle over. That is not set out here.

Mr. Churchill: Metaphysics, not politics.

The Prime Minister: I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he accepts this principle. We on this side are not prepared to accept the principle that the most vital economic forces of this country should be handed over to an authority that is utterly undemocratic and is responsible to nobody. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he could have changed that principle, if he said that he would go

in on another basis, if he was willing to go on, as one might very well go on, to discuss all kinds of organisations in Europe, including international arrangements, well and good—that could have been done.
That was not what we were asked. It was a condition of entering the conference that we should accept this principle. We could not do it. We said so frankly, and I think it is far better that in going into a conference like this, in negotiations of this kind, you should say quite frankly where you stand and not go in under false colours.
It is quite untrue to suggest that in any of these international matters this Government has been behindhand. On the contrary, we have taken the lead. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was quite wrong in suggesting that we ought to have done all these things in 1945 and 1946. In those years we were trying to build up one world. There had not come this deep gulf between East and West. We were still striving, on the quadripartite terms in Germany, to try to build up one Europe. After that, we had to work on these things with a smaller circle of associates.
It is not true, as has been suggested, that work has not been done on these problems of the basic industries. There has been work done in O.E.E.C., and in doing that work there are revealed a great many difficulties. I entirely agree that there are great possibilities of moving forward on these functional lines towards European unity. That is much better than trying to form fancy constitutions. I think that the practical work that has been done is the foundation for the unity of Europe.
But recollect that in Document 10 of the White Paper, this is specifically stated to be a foundation for a federated Europe. That is a different matter altogether. This is put forward as a basis on which is to be built up a European federation. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out the difficulty of our associating fully in anything of that kind. Therefore, there is also the political, as well as the economic, side.
A great deal of eloquence has been wasted in the House on urging everybody to be enthusiastic for European unity. We are enthusiastic for it, but it is no


good being enthusiastic for the wrong method. This may or may not be the right method, but I am sure it is the wrong method of getting unity to accept a principle without examining it, because that is the way to bring about destruction of confidence. Had we gone in, accepting these principles, with all the reservations put before us by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, and then found we could not work them, we should have been accused of being the people who are breaking up national confidence. We are not prepared to go in on that basis and I am quite sure that there are many hon. Members on the benches opposite,

when they consider exactly what this means, who will have very great qualms in accepting the principle. I ask the House to unite on the Government Amendment, which expresses the view that we wish for this greater unity of Europe. We are prepared to enter fully with our friends and Allies, but we cannot go in pledge-bound to a principle which has not been fully examined and which we are not prepared at this stage to accept.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 309.

Division No. 48.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip-Northwood)
Hogg, Hon. Q


Alport, C. J. M.
Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)
Hollis, M. C.


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Cundiff, F. W.
Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hope, Lord J.


Arbuthnot, John
Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hopkinson, H. L. D' A.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Davidson, Viscountess
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Horsbrugh, Miss F.


Astor, Hon. M.
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)


Baker, P.
de Chair, S.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Baldock, J. M.
De la Bère, R.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Deedes, W. F.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Banks, Col. C.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Baxter, A. B.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hutbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Donner, P. W.
Hurd, A. R.


Bell, R. M.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bennett, R F. B. (Gosport)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hyde, H. M.


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Dunglass, Lord
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Birch, Nigel
Duthie, W. S.
Jennings, R.


Bishop, F. P.
Eccles, D. M.
Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)


Black, C. W.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Boothby, R.
Erroll, F. J.
Kaberry, D.


Bossom, A. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Keeling, E. H.


Bower, N.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fort, R.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Foster, J. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Braine, B.
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Langford-Holt, J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Law, fit. Hon. R. K.



Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Leather, E. H. C.


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Gammons, L. D.
Lindsay, Martin


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Linstead, H. N.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Llewellyn, D.


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Glyn, Sir R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Butcher, H. W.
Gridley, Sir A.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Carr, L. R (Mitcham)
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Longden, G. J. M. (Herts, S. W.)


Carson, Hon. E.
Harden, J. R. E.
Low, A. R. W.


Channon, H.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grlnstead)
Harris, R. R. (Heston)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Clyde, J. L.
Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S.
McCallum, Maj. D.


Colega'[...]. A.
Hay, John
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)


Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Heald, L. F.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Heath, Edward
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
McKibbin, A.


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Cranborne, Viscount
Higgs, J M. C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F. C.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maclean, F H. R.


Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Crouch, R. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey
MacManaway, Rev. J. G.




Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Raikes, H. V.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Redmayne, M.
Teeling, William


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Renton, D. L. M.
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)


Marples, A. E.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Maude, J. C. (Exeter)
Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)
Tilney, John


Maudling, R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Touche, G. C.


Medlicott, Brigadier F
Roper, Sir H.
Turton, R. H.


Molson, A. H. E.
Ropner, Col. L.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Vane, W. M. F.


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Russell, R. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Chencester)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Mott-Radclyfle, C. E.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wade, D. W.


Nicholls, H.
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Nicholson, G.
Scott, Donald
Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylobone)


Nield, B. (Chester)
Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Nugent, G. R H.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nutting, Anthony
Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester)
Waterhouse, Capt. C


Oakshott, H. D.
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)
Watkinson, H.


Odey, G. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Webbe, Sir H. (London)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Snadden, W. McN.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Soames, Capt. C.
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Orr, Capt, L. P. S.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


Osborne, C.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)
Wills, G.


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stevens, G. P.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wood, Hon. R


Pickthorn, K.
Storey, S.
York, C.


Pitman, I. J.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Young, Sir A. S. L.


Prescott, Stanley
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)



Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Studholme, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Summers, G. S
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Grimond.


Profumo, J. D.
Sutcliffe, H.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, Albert (Islington. S. W.)


Adams, Richard
Clunie, J.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Albu, A. H.
Cocks, F. S.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Coldrick, W.
Ewart, R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Collick, P.
Fairhurst, F.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Collindridge, F.
Fernyhough, E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cook, T. F.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Finch, H. J.


Ayles, W. H.
Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Follick, M.


Baird, J.
Cove, W. G.
Foot, M. M.


Balfour, A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Forman, J. C.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Crawley, A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Bartley, P.
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S
Freeman, J. (Watford)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Crosland, C. A. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Benson, G.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gaitskell, fit. Hon. H. T. N.


Beswick, F.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Daggar, G.
Gibson, C. W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Daines, P.
Gilzean, A.


Blackburn, A. R.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Blenkinsop, A.
Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Gooch, E. G.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Boardman, H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)


Booth, A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Greenwood, Rt. Ht. Arthur (Wakefield)


Bottomley, A. G.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Grenfell, D. R.


Bowden, H. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Grey, C. F.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Deer, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Delargy, H. J.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Diamond, J.
Gunter, R. J.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Dodds, N. N.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Donnelly, D.
Hale, J. (Rochdale)


Brown, George (Belper)
Donovan, T. N.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)


Burke, W. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne V'll'y)


Burton, Miss E.
Dye, S.
Hamilton, W. W.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hannan, W.


Callaghan, James
Edelman, M.
Hardman, D. R.


Carmichael, James
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hardy, E. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Hargreaves, A.


Champion, A. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Harrison, J.







Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Manuel, A. C.
Simmons, C J


Hayman, F. H.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Slater, J


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Mellish, R. J
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Messer, F
Snow, J. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L
Sorensen, R. W


Holman, P.
Mikardo, Ian
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Mitchison, G. R.
Sparks, J. A.


Houghton, Douglas
Moeran, E. W.
Steele, T.


Hoy, J.
Monslow, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hubbard, T.
Moody, A. S
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Morley, R.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen) N.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Stross, Dr. B.


Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Mort, D. L.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Moyle, A
Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Mulley, F. W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Nally, W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Janner, B.
Neal, H.
Thomas, I R. (Rhondda, W.)


Jay, D. P. T.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Jeger, G. (Goole)
O'Brien, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Oldfield, W. H
Timmons, J.


Jenkins, R. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Orbach, M.
Tomney, F.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Padley, W. E
Turner-Samuels, M.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Paget, R. T.
Usborne, Henry


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Vernon, Maj. W F


Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Viant, S. P.


Keenan, W
Pannell, T. C
Wallace, H. W.


Kenyon, C.
Pargiter, G. A
Watkins, T E.


Key, Rt. Hon C. W
Parker, J.
Webb, Rt Hon. M. (Bradford. C.)


King, H. M.
Paton, J.
Weitzman, D.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.
Pearson, A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Kinley, J.
Peart, T. F
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D
Poole, Cecil



Lang, Rev. G.
Popplewell, E
West, D. G.


Lee, F. (Newton)
Porter, G.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
White, Mrs. E (E. Flint)


Lever, L. M (Ardwick)
Proctor, W. T.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Lever, N H. (Cheetham)
Pryde, D. J.
Wigg, George


Lewis, A W. J. (West Ham, N.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)
Rankin, J.
Wilkes, L.


Lindgren, G. S.
Rees, Mrs. D
Wilkins, W. A.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Reeves, J.
Willey, F. T (Sunderland)


Logan, D G.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Longden, F. (Small Heath)
Reid, W. (Camlachie)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


McAllister, G.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


MacColl, J. E.
Richards, R
Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)


McGhee, H. G
Robens, A.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


McGovern, J
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


McInnes, J.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Mack, J. D.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wise, Major F. J


Mackay, R. W G. (Reading, N.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McLeavy, F.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Woods, Rev. G. S.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Royle, C.
Wyatt, W. L.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Yates, V. F.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Mainwaring, W. H.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.



Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
TELLERS FOB THE NOES:


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Mr. William Whiteley and


Mann, Mrs. J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Mr. R. J. Taylor.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 309; Noes, 296.

Division No. 49.]
AYES
[7.14 p.m


Acland, Sir Richard
Bartley, P.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)


Adams, Richard
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Albu, A. H.
Benson, G
Brockway, A. Fanner


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Beswick, F.
Brook, D. (Halifax)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Bing, G. H. C.
Broughton, Dr A. D. D.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Blackburn, A. R.
Brown, George (Belper)


Awbery, S. S.
Blenkinsop, A.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Ayles, W. H.
Blyton, W. R.
Burke, W. A.


Bacon, Miss A
Boardman, H.
Burton, Miss E.


Baird, J.
Booth, A.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)


Balfour, A
Bottomley, A. G.
Callaghan, James


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bowden, H. W
Carmichael, James




Cattle, Mrs. B. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Oldfield, W. H


Champion, A. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Orbach, M.


Clunie, J.
Hobson, C. R.
Padley, W. E.


Cocks, F. S.
Holman, P.
Paget, R T.


Coldrick, W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Collick, P.
Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Cook, T. F.
Hoy, J.
Pannell, T. C.


Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hubbard, T
Pargiter, G. A.


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Parker, J.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, J.


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, T. F.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)
Poole, Cecil


Crawley, A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, E.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Proctor, W. T.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pryde, D. J.


Daggar, G.
Janner, B.
Pursey, Comdr. H


Daines, P.
Jay, D. P. T.
Rankin, J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jeger, G, (Goole)
Rees, Mrs. D.


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Reeves, J.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jenkins, R. H.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, W. (Camlachie)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Richards, R.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Robens, A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Deer, G.
Keenan, W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Delargy, H. J.
Kenyon, C.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Diamond, J.
Key, Rt. Hon C. W
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Dodds, N. N.
King, H. M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Donnelly, D.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Royle, C.


Donovan, T. N.
Kinley, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Lang, Rev. G.
Shinwell, Rt Hon. E


Dye, S.
Lee, F. (Newton)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Edelman, M.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Silverman, S. S (Nelson)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)
Simmons, C. J


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lewis, A. W J. (West Ham, N.)
Slater, J.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Snow, J. W.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Ewart, R.
Longden, F. (Small Heath)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.


Fairhurst, F.
McAllister, G.
Sparks, J. A.


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, J. E
Steele, T.


Field, Capt. W. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Finch, H. J.
McGovern, J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McInnes, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J


Follick, M.
Mack, J. D.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Foot, M. M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. B.


Forman, J. C.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McLeavy, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Freeman, J. (Watford)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)


Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Gooch, E. G.
Manuel, A. C.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, J.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mellish, R. J
Tomney, F.


Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
Turner-Samuels, M


Grey, C. F.
Middleton, Mrs. L
Usborne, Henry


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Moeran, E. W.
Wallace, H. W


Gunter, R. J.
Monslow, W.
Watkins, T. E.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Moody, A. S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford C.)


Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Weitzman, D.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morley, R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne V'll'y)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
West, D. G.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D. L.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hannan, W.
Moyle, A.
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Hardman, D. R.
Mulley, F. W.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hardy, E A.
Murray, J. D
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hargreaves, A.
Nally, W.
Wigg, George


Harrison, J.
Neal, H.
Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wilkes, L.


Hayman, F. H.
O'Brien, T.
Wilkins, W. A







Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J H (Huyton)
Wyatt, W. L.


Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)
Yates, V. F.


Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Wise, Major F. J.



Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Woods, Rev. G. S.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Collindridge.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T


Alport, C. J. M.
Dunglass, Lord
Lindsay, Martin


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Duthie, W. S.
Linstead, H. N


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Eccles, D. M.
Llewellyn, D.


Arbuthnot, John
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Wallet
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)
Erroll, F. J.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Astor, Hon. M.
Fisher, Nigel
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Baker, P.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Longden, G. J. M. (Herts, S. W.)


Baldock, J. M.
Fort, R.
Low, A. R. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Foster, J. G.
Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S)


Banks, Col. C.
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Baxter, A. B.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O


Bell, R. M.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McAdden, S. J.


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McCallum, Maj. D.


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Gammans, L. D.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Gates, Maj. E. E
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Birch, Nigel
Glyn, Sir R.
McKibbin, A.


Bishop, F. P.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Black, C. W.
Gridley, Sir A.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Grimston, Hon J. (St. Albans)
Maclean, F H. R


Boothby, R.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bossom, A. C
Harden, J. R. E.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Bower, N.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
MacManaway, Rev. J. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Harris, R. R. (Heston)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Braine, B.
Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Comdr. J W


Braithwaite, Lt -Comdr. J. G.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Manningham-Buller, R. E


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W.
Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S
Marlowe, A. A H


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Hay, John
Marples, A. E


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Head, Brig. A. H
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Heald, L. F
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Heath, Edward
Maude, A E. U. (Ealing, S.)


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maude, J C. (Exeter)


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maudling, R.


Butcher, H. W.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Medlicott, Brigadier F


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mellor, Sir J


Carr, L. R. (Mitcham)
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Molson, A. H. E.


Carson, Hon. E
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T


Channon, H.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Morris, R Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
Hollis, M. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Clarke, Brig T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Clyde, J. L.
Hope, Lord J.
Nabarro, G.


Colagate, A.
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Nicholls, H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Nicholson, G.


Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Horsbrugh, Miss F.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Cooper-Key, E. M
Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Howard, Gerald (cambridgesh([...])
Nugent, G. R. H.


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nutting, Anthony


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Oakshott, H. D


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Odey, G. W.


Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hurd, A. R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D


Crouch, R. F.
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip-Northwood)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)
Hyde, H. M.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Cundiff, F. W.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Osborne, C


Cuthbert, W. N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Darling, Sir W. Y (Edinburgh, S.)
Jennings, R.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Davidson, Viscountess
Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Pickthorn, K.


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W
Pitman, I. J.


de Chair, S.
Kaberry, D.
Powell, J. Enoch


De la Bère, R.
Keeling, E. H.
Prescott, Stanley


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham. W.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Prior-Palmerr Brig. O.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Lambert, Hon. G.
Profumo, J. D.


Donner, P. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Raikes, H. V.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Rayner, Brig. R


Drayson, G. B.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Redmayne, M.


Drewe, C.
Leather, E. H. C.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Ronton, D. L M.







Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)
Vosper, D. F.


Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)
Stevens, G. P.
Wade, D. W.


Robertton, Sir D. (Caithness)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)


Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)
Storey, S.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)
Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Roper, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Ropner, Col. L.
Studholme, H G
Waterhouse, Capt. C


Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Summers, G S
Watkinson, H.


Russell, R. S.
Sutcliffe, H.
Webbe, Sir H. (Lonaon)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D
Taylor, C S. (Eastbourne)
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Savory, Prof. D. L.
Teeling, William
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Scott, Donald
Thomas, J P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Shepherd, W. S (Cheadle)
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)
Williams, Sir H. G (Croydon, E.)


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)
Wills, G.


Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Wood, Hon R.


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Tilney, John
York, C.


Snadden, W. McN.
Touche, G. C
Young, Sir A. S L


Soames, Capt. C.
Turton, R. H.



Spearman, A. C. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Mr. Grimond.


Resolution agreed to.

Resolved:
That this House welcomes the initiative of the French Foreign Minister of 9th May and, while recognising that it was not possible for His Majesty's Government to take part in the international consideration of his proposals on terms which committed them in advance of such consideration to pool the production of coal and steel and to institute a new high authority whose decisions would bind the Governments concerned, approves the declared readiness of His Majesty's Govern-to take a constructive part in the conversations with the hope that they may be able to join in, or associate themselves with, this common effort.

PUBLIC REGISTERS AND RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

MEDICAL BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.26 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House is now being asked to turn its back on its recent performance as a theatre and become a workshop once more; and I hope that the excitement which has just occurred will not prevent us from giving proper attention to what is a prosaic, but very important, subject.
The Bill comes to us from another place, where a number of Amendments have been accepted, and I daresay that hon. Members of the House of Commons

will wish to have a careful look at it, with a view to seeing whether any further constructive Amendments can be made. I am hoping it will not be necessary to have a protracted Debate on the Bill on Second Reading, because, I gather that there is general agreement with the main purposes of the Measure. The Bill does not purport to undertake a complete revision of the medical Acts. That would indeed be a major Measure calling for prolonged and very detailed study, necessitating a very heavy demand on Parliamentary time and possibly evoking a great deal of controversy. All that the Bill sets out to do is to make provision for a number of matters clearly of urgent public importance and for a few less important matters where some early change in the existing arrangements is obviously desirable. From discussions with representatives of the medical profession, and others, and from the welcome given to the Bill in another place, we believe it will command general support.
There are four main purposes of the Bill. The first is to improve the standard of medical education. The Bill gives effect to two of the main recommendations requiring legislation contained in the report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Medical Schools, called the Goodenough Committee, which was issued in 1944. It provides, in Clauses 1 to 6, that, from a day to be appointed, every medical student, after he has passed his final examination, but before he is admitted to the Medical Register, and thus allowed to take up independent medical practice, is to be


required to serve satisfactorily for a prescribed period in one or more approved hospitals or institutions.
The intention is that the period of intern service should normally be one year. In fact, the Bill as introduced in another place, specified that that should be the minimum period, but, by an Amendment agreed in Committee there, the period is now left to be fixed by the General Medical Council subject to the approval of the Privy Council, without any specified minimum. Leaving the matter open in this way will, for example, facilitate any modifications which may have to be made in the event of an emergency and there is also just the possibility that at the outset there might be difficulty in enforcing a full year's service.
As the Goodenough Committee states:
There has been enthusiastic support among our witnesses, including representatives of the medical students, for the proposal that, in future, entry into independent medical practice should be preceded by a compulsory period of approved and responsible clinical practice under supervision.
They point out that the special value of this experience before registration lies in developing in the holder a sense of responsibility. Following the passing of his final examination, he needs—before launching out into independent medical practice—to have actual experience of medical practice under guidance and supervision in circumstances which afford adequate time for thought, for further study and for the personal investigation of the social and environmental conditions of the patients with whom he comes into contact. When he launches out into the world he will do so as a more fully trained and equipped medical man.
There are various ways in which this pre-registration period, which may be called for convenience the "intern period," could be organised. There is, however, general agreement that the intern period should be spent wholly in an approved hospital or institution, and the Bill itself provides that this must be so. It is left to the General Medical Council to decide how long the student is to spend in medicine and surgery respectively during his intern period. For the most part it is anticipated that he will hold what are in effect junior house appointments, that is, posts as house

surgeon and house physician. At present these are held by doctors after registration. An Amendment made in another place makes it clear that the institutions in which the intern period may be spent include, subject to certain safeguards, approved health centres.
Before a doctor begins his intern service he will be put on a provisional register. This will enable him to discharge the duties of a registered medical practitioner so far as is needed for him to complete his intern service, and will also make him subject, if necessary, to the appropriate disciplinary machinery.
It will obviously be some time before a day can be appointed for giving effect to the requirement of intern service. It is, for example, necessary to ensure that there are sufficient house appointments or other suitable posts for all doctors who pass their final examinations, before the requirement can be imposed; and since the intern will have to live in or conveniently near his hospital or institution, accommodation problems have to be faced. Obviously, too, some period of notice to existing students would have to be given before such a requirement could be imposed. All this will inevitably take time, and that is why the Government are so glad that they have been able to make a start now with the introduction of the Bill. It is possible that some parts of the British Isles may be ready for the introduction of the compulsory intern period before others; and the Bill makes it possible for the requirement to be introduced piecemeal for this reason in different parts of the British Isles—if that should ultimately be considered desirable.
One point of interest may be mentioned. The General Medical Council still exercises some jurisdiction in relation to the Republic of Ireland, under an agreement entered into between the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State, as it then was, in 1927. For example, doctors who pass their final examinations in the Republic are admitted on application to the General Medical Council's Register. Furthermore, the universities and Royal Colleges in the Republic appoint members to the General Medical Council. It has, therefore, been necessary to enter into consultations with the Government of the Republic to ensure that the present arrangements outlined in the Bill are acceptable to them and that they


for their part would similarly be willing to amend their own law as necessary. Complete agreement between the two countries has been reached on this matter, I am glad to say, and the provisions of the Bill accord, we believe, with that agreement.
It should also be mentioned that we are not the first country to provide for the introduction of compulsory intern service. New South Wales, the Union of South Africa and many States of America already have a requirement of this kind. With some countries the General Medical Council have reciprocal arrangements; and provision is made; for newly qualified doctors from these countries who apply here for registration under these arrangements to have to show that they too have served an intern period or otherwise acquired equally extensive experience.
This provision, too, it may well be necessary to apply at different times to different countries. New South Wales and the Union of South Africa are already prepared for the introduction of such a requirement; other countries with whom we have reciprocal relations are not yet ready and some time for consultation and, if necessary, adjustments will have to be given.
There is a further provision in the Bill for the visitation of medical schools. The Bill empowers the General Medical Council to appoint visitors to visit places where medical students are taught. This, again, is in accordance with the views of the Goodenough Committee as expressed in chapter 16 of their Report. Hitherto the General Medical Council have only been able to appoint visitors and inspectors of examinations, whose duty it has been to report as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of these examinations. In fact, however, the standard of professional practice obviously depends more on the teaching given in the medical schools than on any control that the Council can exercise by visiting and inspecting these examinations.
I think that that will be clear to hon. Members who have given their time to the matter, because the general standard in the schools will have a profound effect on whether or not the intern period will be advantageous. Accordingly, the powers of the Council are being widened to enable them to visit the actual places where medical students are taught and to report on the training actually given. As the Goodenough Committee said:

The regular inspection of medical schools should contribute to the maintenance of good standards and should prove helpful to the schools.
There is power to give directions to the General Medical Council in connection with the arrangements made for visitations. This power is to be exercised by the Privy Council. The House will realise that, in this matter, we have been very careful all the time to ensure that any influence over the academic side of medicine should be exercised by authorities like the Privy Council and the General Medical Council and not directly by the Government. Here, as in the National Health Service Act itself, I have been particularly scrupulous to see that there is no governmental intervention of any sort with academic medicine. We believe that the General Medical Council and the university authorities should have no difficulty in making arrangements so that there should be some agreement as to these inspections. This particular provision in the Bill requires no long advance administrative arrangements, and will come into operation immediately.
The second purpose of the Bill is to alter the constitution of the General Medical Council. There are now 39 members of the Council, and, under the provisions of the Bill, this number is increased to 47. At the moment, the number of Crown members is five, and under the new constitution it will be eight. The number of members elected by the medical profession is seven, and the new number will be 11. The members appointed by the universities, medical corporations and Royal Colleges is 27, and will become 28. I am glad to say that the Royal College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians is added to the number of Royal Colleges now represented on the Council.
One reason why the strength of the General Medical Council has been increased is because everybody concerned in this matter believes that it is desirable to give the profession's own representatives a fuller say in the work of the Council as a whole, and to increase the total number of elected members also gives a wider choice of such members to sit on the proposed Medical Disciplinary Committee.
The Bill as introduced in the House of Lords provided for an increase from


seven to nine, but the House of Lords agreed to an Amendment which brought the number up to 11—and also provided specifically for a Welshman to be included among the 11. I myself consider that this was a work of supererogation, because I am quite certain that a Welshman would have found his way there anyway, since so many are distinguished members of the profession. There has also been a desire that there should be an increase in the number of secular members of the authority, and that is the reason why there has been an increase from one to three.
The third point of the Bill, and a very important one indeed, is the improvement in the disciplinary machinery and procedure of the General Medical Council. Obviously, a Council of 47 is not suitable to act as a whole as a disciplinary authority. It is proposed, therefore, in Clause 14, to entrust decisions on professional discipline to a new medical disciplinary committee of the Council, which will have 19 members, including the President of the Council, at least six elected members and at least two laymen.
By an Amendment made in the House of Lords, the Bill provides that cases should normally be dealt with, not by the full Committee of 19—which is itself rather large—but by between five and nine of the members, including at least one layman. The President of the Council will, however, still be entitled to arrange for the full committee to deal with a particular case, if he thinks circumstances warrant this.
Provision is made for evidence to be taken on oath and for witnesses to be subpoenaed. There is no similar power at present, and, as a result it has, for example, often not been possible to secure the attendance of necessary witnesses. This change in the law is exceedingly important from the point of view of the doctors. A doctor whose name is erased from the Register is given a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, either on law or on fact or against sentence, and this I am sure hon. Members will realise, is an exceedingly important improvement on the existing situation.
The Government considered whether the appeal should lie to the High Court,

to the Court of Session, or to the High Court of Northern Ireland, according to the nature of the case, but we came to the conclusion, after looking at this very carefully indeed, that there would be likely to be three different appeal standards, and, also, that it would be very difficult to find a wholly satisfactory definition of a Scottish or an Irish case, and it was agreed that it should be exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
There is also provision for rules to be made, both for the procedure of the disciplinary committee—rules made by the committee and subject to the Privy Council's approval—and as to the functions which the legal assessors to the Council will exercise. All these changes will come into operation on a day to be appointed. It is necessary to have a provision for an appointed day because the various rules that need to be made will require careful consideration and discussion with all interests involved.
The fourth provision is to increase the fees payable for registration in the Medical Register. At present, the maximum fee which the General Medical Council can charge is £5. This was originally fixed in 1858. The functions of the General Medical Council, carried on without imposing any charge on public funds, have obviously much increased since then, and the income from registration fees, the main source of the Council's income and other sources, has become quite insufficient to enable the Council to pay its way.
Accordingly, the Bill now provides for a fee to be fixed of a maximum of 11 guineas for full registration, including five guineas for provisional registration when that is operative. There is power for the Privy Council to vary the maxima by Order. This provision for increased fees will take effect on the passing of the Act.
There are also a number of matters of some importance, but not of sufficient importance to warrant their mention during a Second Reading Debate. For instance, hon. Members will note that there is a provision in the Bill which makes it impossible for Members of Parliament who are members of the General Medical Council to receive fees. This is to make it quite clear that we are not


creating any offices of profit under the Crown, and, therefore, we shall not in this instance find it necessary to bring forward saving legislation.

Dr. Morgan: Why?

Mr. Bevan: For the obvious reason that it would not be right for hon. Members to receive fees for any attendances at the Council's meetings. They can draw subsistence allowances and other expenses, but they cannot take any fees, no matter how small. Otherwise, legislation would be necessary to exempt the person concerned from the most fierce penalties which he might have incurred. The provision in the Bill makes sure that that shall not happen.
I have endeavoured to be as short as possible, because I know that we are now considering this Bill against the background of an exciting day, and that hon. Members who wish to speak will be anxious to give the Bill a smooth and speedy passage. With those remarks I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Dr. Walter Elliot.

7.49 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for that little slip which you made in calling me "Dr." when summoning me to address the House, because it shows that there is a certain association of ideas in your mind which perhaps enables me to speak with considerable sympathy on the purposes of this Bill, though I am afraid that I have long since passed out of any immediate knowledge of the objects which it seeks to secure.
We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health for having brought forward this Bill and for his clear and succinct explanation of its provisions. I think the Bill is one to which the House will certainly give a ready assent, and, although a certain amount of consideration may have to be given to it in Committee, I do not think it should be prolonged. Like the Minister I have sometimes had experience of Bills which received the unanimous assent of the House on Second Reading, and met with general good will, but which somehow proceeded to attract a great deal more

attention and discussion than matters which raised points of controversy and which could be summarily disposed of. But I do not think that will be the case here.
As the Minister has said the purposes of the Bill are fourfold. They are improvements in machinery in relation to the General Medical Council and a very important alteration in medical education. The latter, of course, is more important than all the others put together because the alterations in medical education will affect every graduate, whereas the disciplinary powers of the General Medical Council will affect only a very small proportion of those on the Register.
Dealing with them first, I think we would say that the second, third and fourth purposes which the Minister mentioned—the machinery purposes—are unexceptionable. It is interesting to note that the alteration of the General Medical Council will give elected representatives a larger representation. I hope, by the way, that consideration of this Bill will help to dispel—I cannot say that it will entirely dispel—the popular superstition that the General Medical Council is in some way or other the same thing as the British Medical Association, and that tremendous disciplinary powers are handed over to what is, after all, a trade union.
That is a matter which other trade unions bring forward as something which shows the great power of the bourgeois union as against the craft or industry unions of which they are members. Of course, the General Medical Council is in no way a trade union as, indeed, can be seen from the large number of persons appointed to it from outside, which any trade union would look upon with the gravest suspicion, and would probably insist upon dispensing with altogether. It is one of the composite bodies.
The great profession of medicine is one in which Governments have always taken a certain interest and over which they have always demanded the exercise of a certain authority, although it may be said that even the fact of being inscribed on the Medical Register gives one remarkably few privileges or powers. Anyone is free to exercise medicine without being inscribed on the Register at ill, and it is in no way possible to refuse permission to anyone to practise medicine


in this country. But the General Medical Council, first of all, is to have a certain alteration in its representation. We can examine that when we come to it on the Committee stage.
With regard to the third purpose, the disciplinary machinery of the General Medical Council, I am sure that we all welcome the increase in its powers which the Minister has mentioned—the power to subpoena and to take evidence on oath—because miscarriages of justice have taken place in the past owing to the lack of those powers. As regards the right of appeal, I think we are all glad that this right has been given. I am not certain that we shall not have to examine more closely, when we come to the Committee stage, whether, in fact, the solution here determined of an appeal direct to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the appropriate court of appeal to have chosen.
I do not think there are many precedents for an appeal lying directly to this august body, and whether it is the proper one to decide on questions of law, fact, and sentence I think we shall need to explore further at a later stage of the Bill. The Minister said that the Government had examined the question of using the High Court, and that the difference in standards might arise. I do not think that is a very grave danger, but his other reason—that there might be some difficulty in deciding what was actually an appropriate case to remit to the appropriate authority—had more substance in it. We shall be very glad to look at the arguments on that point.
As for the final purpose, I fear it is one without which no piece if legislation nowadays, and very few undertakings, are complete—that whatever a thing cost before, it should cost more after we have handled it. It is true that there are very few charges which have gone unincreased since 1858, and no doubt it is necessary that this one, too, should fall into line. It is a remarkable tribute to our forefathers that they were able to set up a body with such adequate provision for its expenses as to carry it on without any change since 1858 to the present day.
As for the stipulation of removing the membership of the General Medical

Council from that of an office of profit, I am sure that is a good thing, although I think it would be better if at an early date the Government could find it possible to bring in legislation tidying up this matter of offices of profit, which is extremely complicated just now. Nothing is more irritating than to find that some trivial and almost nominal acceptance of a fee, or of the possibility of a fee, has made it technically illegal for an hon. Member to sit in this House, I think we had to pass legislation for the purpose of saving two hon. Members of this House from such a consequence, and I believe that one of them is sitting in the Chamber now.
If, then, we can deal with those matters—as I am sure we can—without any great delay, it leaves open for consideration at a little greater length the main purpose of the Bill, which is the improvement of medical education. Here the very important step has been taken of recommending that an additional period of a year should take its place in the medical curriculum. The danger is that the curriculum may be unduly prolonged, that the final period may be projected further and further away until it comes to a period in a man's life where he can no longer take full advantage of it. In some ways, the curriculum is already overloaded. The masses of information which the medical student has to acquire, and which were appropriate in other days, are not, I think anyone would agree, appropriate today. A pruning knife ought to be applied to this tree, otherwise it may cease to bear fruit altogether and merely develop into a proliferation of foliage and branches.
In the second professional examination, a minute acquaintance with every aspect of anatomy is called for, which I think is carried far beyond what any student will remember, even for a short period, after he has once successfully satisfied the examiners. Anyone having to deal with those intricate matters would certainly read them up very closely beforehand, and no one would trust to the casual recollections of his student days. Medical education should constantly be re-modelled to suit the necessities of the time. As a medical student, I do not think I ever saw a live man without any clothes on. I saw a great number of


dead men or skinned men, but the number of dead or skinned men which a medical student sees is, in practice, very small compared with the number of people he sees who are alive, and whose skin covers their flesh and bones. The whole great question of surface anatomy was long ago greatly needed. The danger is of these things piling on top of each other instead of substitutions taking place. I am sure it would be to the advantage of the students and the patients who subsequently come under their care, if this could be done.
I yield to no one in my admiration of the training which the great hospitals give young graduates in their houseman-ship. Practically all the medical men here have put in a year as housemen after they qualified. The point is, however, that responsibility is never felt on one's shoulders to the same extent when all the apparatus and resources of a great hospital are around one, as when one is starting to grapple with the multifarious emergencies of private practice with one's own hands and knowledge. When I went to my first locum, I heard the bell ring with considerable trepidation.

Mr. Bevan: Probably the patients rang the bell with equal trepidation.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I trust that I concealed my apprehensions from them. In fact, I thought I did so fairly successfully, because the skill of the doctor is shown, not merely by his professional qualifications, but by the confidence he can impart to those under his care. It is an essential part of all successful medicine that the doctor radiates an aura of confidence, although how far I was able to do that, heaven only knows. The great hospital has the power to buoy up a man to an extent he never realises until he leaves and tries to tackle the problems on his own.
It is said that a new set of posts will need to be created to give greater responsibility to the housemen. These posts will be difficult to get, and an appropriate responsibility will be a difficult thing to devolve upon them. We all remember the "Hospital Sonnets" of W. E. Henley and his description of ward sisters, the new style and the old. "The Chief himself is half afraid of her." If the great Lister himself said that he was half afraid

of them, how much more will it be said of graduates newly entering the hospital wards.
The power and authority of women, both inside and outside this House, we all know, but the power and authority of a woman who has had long professional experience is something terrific, and the support she gives to a man who thinks he may be going to make some mistake is impossible to exaggerate. I am sure that this extra year will need to be looked at with very great care, to make sure that a sense of responsibility is really developed and that it is not merely used as a further occasion for learning.
The Minister says that he is about to bring this Measure into operation on an appointed day, and that it may not be possible to bring it in simultaneously all over the country. In passing, may I say that I am not clear from the Bill, or from the Minister's explanations, what is the relation to the Republic of Ireland on this point. Is it possible for a graduate of the Republic of Ireland to come and practise in this country without any reciprocal requirements, that is to say, is it now necessary for a graduate of the Republic of Ireland to do a year in a hospital?

Mr. Bevan: As I understand it, the answer is "Yes." If it is a requirement for doctors on the general Register here to have a year intern, we shall have to require the same thing for doctors trained in the Republic.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am glad to hear that, but I do not see it in the Bill, although perhaps the Minister can point it out to me during a later stage. If it is not so prescribed, then I think it will need to be prescribed.

Mr. Bevan: We cannot write into our law an obligation in regard to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, but we understand that they will write into their law a similar provision.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I quite understand that we cannot write anything into their law, but we can lay it down as a requirement for admission to the Register that those coming from outside shall not be subjected to less rigorous terms than doctors in this country. I think we can lay that down without any appearance


of discrimination. It is simply part of the new system we are bringing in here.
The provisions for the operation of this new requirement will be difficult and will need to be carefully scrutinised. I trust that from time to time it will be possible for the Minister to inform us how they are progressing in regard to bringing these things into force. Apart from that, I am sure that all my hon. Friends welcome the Bill and will do their best to give it an easy passage.
Its purpose is to maintain and improve the standards of medical education in this country, purposes which all of us have very deeply at heart. The high standard of medical education, which transcends national boundaries, is very carefully guarded and is one of the glories of our country. We have maintained as high a medical education and professional conduct as anyone in the world. Admission to the Medical Register of this country is something highly prized in every country in the world.
I had the privilege during the Whitsun Recess of visiting one of the newest professional schools in the Empire, the new medical school that is coming into existence in Nigeria, the University College of Nigeria at Ibadan. An attempt is being made to bring into existence in the heart of Africa a professional school which will take men from entry to complete graduation, giving them an education which will enable them, forthwith, to enter the Medical Register of this country. That is a high ideal and something greatly prized by the students entering upon their courses. It is a school of the London University. The professional examinations are of the highest standard, and are supervised by external examiners coming from this country. It is to be in all respects fully equal to the education that can be gained in medical schools in this country. And so, we are legislating for them as well as for our own people.
Many people far and wide, will be intimately affected by what we do tonight. It is a great trust that we have to administer, and I am sure that we shall all set ourselves to the task of administering it wisely and well. For that reason, we are very glad the Bill has been brought forward, and we shall give it our close and sympathetic consideration during all its stages.

8.10 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: I must oppose this Bill. I cannot be a hypocrite; I cannot get up in the House of Commons-with certain honest intentions, and then deliver a speech—nor can I listen to the speeches of other hon. Members—which I know to be not related to the true facts of the situation from the point of view of the reform of the General Medical Council, a question with which I have lived and which I have studied for nearly 40 years.
What are the chief functions of the General Medical Council, apart from the trivialities of deciding such things as whether there should be payment for a job, or considering antediluvian ideas of reform? There are three functions attached to the General Medical Council. First is that of the supervision of the British Pharmacopoeia—supervision of the dosages and preparation of drugs that are used in the course of treatment by physicians. We need not spend much time on that, because that is the one function of the General Medical Council which has been very well done—excellently done. No tribute can be too high for the men who have the supervision of treatment from that point of view.
The second function is medical education, and that is bad—very bad. There should be in this country a one-portal system of entering into the profession on one fixed standard, so that everybody—every medical man—who comes into the profession should pass a qualifying examination, and enter the profession through one door only, so that he can be recognised throughout Great Britain and the world as being of a certain standard.
Now we have different standards of examination. There are not only those of the great university schools. Again, one cannot pay too high a tribute to them. There are also the undemocratic bodies not of great concern to the public but only to themselves. Take the London Society of Apothecaries. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) tell me that the L.S.A., as an independent society of apothecaries—as they were called in the old days, and as they are still called—should be entitled to have an examination of the lowest type—or, as I should not say the lowest type, of a minor type—to enter universities, by which a man may


be qualified? Should there not be one fixed portal for medicine through which they should have to pass—one examination, one portal; and then, if a man wants to specialise, letting him do so by postgraduate courses? Surely that should be the way.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Does the hon. Member suggest that the Society of Apothecaries does not carry out its functions properly, or that the examinations are valueless?

Dr. Morgan: I say that the standard of medical education and of the knowledge asked for, is too low for qualification. In any case, that does not affect my first principle, that instead of having a variety of examinations there should be one governing professional qualifying examination, with an examiner—not examiners from the schools—to see that every man has a fair deal. It should be a non-judicial examination, although when I say "non-judicial" I do not mean non-medical. I mean that the entrants into the profession should be properly taught.
Many of these organisations, like the colleges, take no responsibility for training. They are purely examining bodies. I think that when we come to require a medical curriculum we should take note of the bodies which make no provision for medical education themselves, but are purely examining bodies, sometimes claiming revenue from those whom they deliberately flout.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: No.

Dr. Morgan: My hon. Friend must not say "No."

Mr. Bevan: We are not, in this Bill, dealing with the medical curriculum at all. That is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. I am not saying that my hon. Friend is not perfectly entitled to make his point. With great respect, I think he is quite in order, but it is hardly a charge to be laid against me that I have not included, in a modest Bill, provisions for changes in the curriculum. Indeed. I am not quite certain that I have the statutory right so to do.

Dr. Morgan: I know the Minister may think I seem rash and hasty. Perhaps we could discuss these things outside afterwards. However, I think, with great respect, I am in order. I hope I will be

left alone, because I feel very strongly about this. I know that the ordinary run of the profession are concerned about keeping up the dignity of the profession, but I feel very strongly on this point. One of the functions of the General Medical Council is the supervision of medical education, and it has the right to represent advice to the medical schools about what subjects should be included in the curriculum.
The Trades Union Congress is very keen on medical education. The T.U.C. wants the subject of industrial diseases, which is of great importance to the working class, taught in the medical schools. It maintains that if there is one subject in which tuition should be given throughout the whole of the medical curriculum, it is the subject of the relationship between occupation and health. The T.U.C., which, in an organised way, represents 5,500,000 workers, some in very difficult jobs, and jobs where grave risks are run of injury to health or limb—the T.U.C. says it would be of advantage to the workers of the country that it should be represented, and it has asked the General Medical Council to include this subject of the relationship between occupation and health in the ordinary curriculum.
What have the medical schools done? They simply did nothing. Indeed, in only three or four of them is there an organised course of lectures—Glasgow, Manchester, Durham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne—where the subject is excellently taught through qualified professors. In none of the others, however, is there any organised course of lectures. One specialist in London, Dr. Donald Hunter, is doing excellent work in the London Hospital, where he has taught the subject The other schools did not bother about it at all.
The General Medical Council should take its courage in its hands and have a democratic body which would not have a mere constitution of only a comparatively few elected members, with the rest nominated, or brought in by the universities. These are nominated members coming from different sources. One actually comes from the Ministry of Health. He is a medical officer of health now in the Ministry of Health. Why should an officer in the Ministry be put on the General Medical Council? Why


should not other Departments be entitled to representation like this?
If the Ministry of Health can have one representative, why should not the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of National Insurance be represented? They are concerned with medical matters from the point of view of industry and health in industry. Why should they not have one member each? I know Mr. Deputy-Speaker is looking at me, thinking I am not quite in order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Gentleman is quite in order.

Dr. Morgan: That being so, I ask, from the point of view of the working class—and I appeal for support especially to Labour Members of this House—that some attention should be paid to this matter in the consideration of this Bill. It looks an innocent little Bill, but at the back of it there are great powers against the democratic administration of medicine in this country. Take the question of registration. At present, the medical course lasts six years. When a working man's son gets a scholarship his parents have to make great sacrifices for six years to get him through his school. It is now proposed to add another year. Why?

Mr. Hastings: He gets paid for the last year.

Dr. Morgan: He gets paid for the last year when he is working in a hospital, but how does he know he will get into a hospital? There are not sufficient institutions in the country to keep all the doctors that will come out. I am being interrupted in an attempt to put me off my guard. This is a quite deliberate act by certain people in the House who want to stop me talking on a subject which is of vital importance to the public.

Mr. Hastings: As a matter of personal explanation, I merely interrupted to correct what I thought was an inaccuracy by my hon. Friend.

Dr. Morgan: If I were guilty of as many inaccuracies as some consultants in some hospitals, including many with which I have been associated, although not the one with which I am associated now, I would keep quiet and say nothing

about this. There is provisional registration on a qualified examination by any of these examining bodies after six years, and this Bill adds another year. A doctor who has been provisionally qualified and registered will have to wait for a year in an approved institution. Who will approve that institution? What evidence will be submitted for approval, and from where? There will be different standards and different types of institutions.
Suppose a man does not want to go into general or even consulting practice. Suppose he wants to be a specialist, or to go in for medical literature to become, perhaps, editor of the "British Medical Journal." Is he still to be forced to attend for another year before registration? Suppose he wants to go into medical research under the State, or in a university. Must he waste another year on a subject in which he is not interested? Suppose he decides to go in for tropical medicine and to become a specialist. What institution will he go to? There are three—it might even be four—two of which are in Liverpool and London. Does it not seem a little absurd, with, at present, no variation in the Bill, that those men who do not desire to do clinical work, either as consultants or general practitioners, should have to study a subject in which they are not interested for this extra year. Suppose a man wants to specialise in leprosy, and become a leprologist; suppose he does not want to stay in England but wants to go to India, or Nigeria, or South Africa, to follow his desires. Is that man to be asked to spend a year in a hospital handling cases in which he is not interested?
This is the weakness of the Bill we have before us today. During the passage of the National Health Act I heard even Members of the Government sometimes making statements in order to meet the Opposition—such as that hospitals like Guys were costing only £160,000 a year, though the latest accounts show that it will cost £1½ million. Before making statements of that kind we must get down to the real figures, and go into the real background to the Bill. I say that on the question of medical education there should be one system and standard; everything should be brought within this province, and we should decide so to amend the Bill.
I should like the Bill to be taken back and re-considered. I suspected its origins in another place, and I now suspect them still more. This extended registration will hurt the working boy whose parents will have to keep him for another year. With regard to the British Pharmacopœia, on which we want the G.M.C. to have a stranglehold, and with regard to medical education, I say that this Bill is a rotten Bill; it is a Conservative Bill. The composition of the General Medical Council should include no nominee, or very few in comparison with the elected members. It should be a purely professional body with certain statutory duties to perform.
I am ashamed to say—and I hope the Government will pardon me for saying it—that this Government, with its particular political opinion, recognising the T.U.C. as the big organised body for industrial workers, has not yet approached the T.U.C. for its views on a matter of such importance to the workers, and particularly the industrial workers, on the question of medical education and conditions. Even now, the conditions in certain workshops are disgraceful. Let any hon. Member go into any firebox on our railways and see the conditions of heat, steam, temperature and pressure under which men have to work—men who, because the railways were deliberately kept out of the Factory Acts, have no facilities for keeping themselves in good health by cleaning themselves after their work.
It is things like that in the field of health to which this House should be devoting itself, and not passing trivial Bills which do not get to the bottom of the problem, which do not mean business, but which merely play for respectability in a superior-class way in a matter which affects the health of every working-man in the country.

8.27 p.m.

Dr. Hill: I shall perhaps be forgiven if I do not follow the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) in all his arguments and assertions, but I should like to comment briefly on his three main points. He argued, in the first place, that there should be a common portal of entry to the medical profession, ignoring the fact that the rôle of the

General Medical Council is to secure a minimum standard, as applied by all licensing bodies, which are left to apply a standard in excess of the minimum standard if they so choose. High as is my regard for the university to which he and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) belong, I, for one, as a graduate of a university on the plains of East Anglia, do not wish to see a levelling-up or a levelling-down of the qualification awarded by his university to reach the level of the one awarded by my own or any other university.

Dr. Morgan: It is the highest in Great Britain.

Dr. Hill: With his second point, on the rôle of industrial medicine in the medical curriculum, I have a great deal of sympathy, but on that he should address himself to that part of the Bill which strengthens the power of the General Medical Council in visting medical schools, and in so enabling the General Medical Council to exercise a stronger influence over those schools.
I believe his third point to be based on a misapprehension. If he is right, I share a good deal of his view. But I hope it is not right to assume that, as a result of this new and important arrangement, which I warmly welcome, under which there is first qualification and then registration, this is merely a year added to the curriculum. If he is right in assuming that, then I believe that the full purposes of this Bill will not be served in relation to medical education. I regard this as a most important change and as a most important feature of the Bill, and I welcome this arrangement under which at a certain stage towards the end of the student's career examinations are out of the way and the man or woman is enabled to assume a post of some responsibility under supervision; is enabled to have a full year, or part of a year, without the prospect of examinations looming ahead, and with such responsibility as can safely be given. I sincerely hope that is not planned as an additional year to the medical curriculum.
I hope that this Bill will lead to a reexamination of medical education. I hope that it will lead to the elimination of some of the unnecessary parts of medical education and to the integration,


if I may use a laboured word, of medical education. I hope, too, that these new posts—and I am glad that the Minister used a relatively new word for this country "internship"—will be designed for the purpose; not house appointments, as we know them today, multiplied for the purpose of this year, but new posts created in relation to the function they have to fulfil in medical education. Indeed, it has been suggested in some quarters that a good way of spending this last year would be for provisionally registered medical practitioners attached to a hospital to be allotted patients on their coming to hospital for treatment and to follow those persons throughout the whole of their treatment back to their homes, with a measure of responsibility for that treatment.
The essence of the point that I want to make is that we shall get the full fruits of this important new development only if that year is related to a revised medical curriculum and special posts and the right kind of responsibility are created for the purpose. I am glad—and I am sure that the Minister will agree—that certain changes were made in another place to leave elbow-room to enable these requirements to be introduced in stages in relation to the number of posts which are created. It would be fantastic if in fact there were not sufficient posts or if there were a waiting period so as unduly to prolong registration. I regard this part of the Bill as of unusual importance and as affording an opportunity to the General Medical Council, which I believe they will take, to re-mould medical education and to secure the creation of the right kind of posts for this phase of responsibility.
The only other aspect of the Bill on which I should like to comment is that dealing with the disciplinary provisions. I am glad that discipline is to be a matter not for the Council as a whole but for a committee specially established for the purpose, because I think that will lead the Council to think more and more about medical education and save them having so much of their time taken up by disciplinary work. In Committee on this Bill there will be an opportunity to look at certain parts of the disciplinary machinery. I do not like the arrangement under which one committee of the Council—the penal cases committee—can

decide whether there exists sufficient evidence to justify the investigation of a case. I do not like to think that any person involved in the original sorting out and assessment of cases may in fact be a member of the medical disciplinary committee.

Dr. Morgan: Why not let us say that a charge needs investigation and let there be a Clause in the Bill by which the whole thing is then referred to the Privy Council, who should appoint two judges with an independent chairman as assessors?

Dr. Hill: The difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself is that he detests this Bill and I like it very much. He prefers lawyers, and lawyers only, to deal with the disciplinary difficulties of doctors. I prefer these problems to be dealt with by doctors, with a lay element as is provided in the Bill.
There are other points which will be raised in Committee. I notice there is a minimum number of elected representatives to be on the committee of 19, which is the disciplinary committee. But there is no provision for any such minimum of elected representatives among the nine which will normally form the committee for hearing any case.
The last point I want to mention involves returning to the point that the hon. Member for Warrington made earlier, for it may lead to some confusion if it is left unanswered. He asked, what is to be the use of this year between provisional and full registration to a man who is going to be a medical journalist, or an expert on tropical diseases, or a surgeon or a physician. The answer is that that year is not merely something grafted on to part of the medical curriculum. It is a part of it. There is the further practical point that the expert on tropical diseases might get weary of tropical diseases. The medical journalist might get weary of his journalism and decide to enter into practice in one or other of its clinical forms. It would be wrong to have two standards for the care of patients, and he knows full well that many men who go into the field of research, change their minds and subsequently find themselves engaged in the medical care of patients.
I join with my right hon. and gallant Friend in welcoming this Bill, in welcoming the opportunity it presents for


re-casting medical education, and in saying that, with such changes as may be thought wise to make in Committee, this is more than a modest contribution to medical education. It is a Bill of a modest size, but it seems to me that it makes a substantial qualitative contribution to medical education, which in the end will bear fruit in a raised standard of medical services, preventive and curative, for the people of this country.

8.38 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I hesitate to intervene in a Debate of this kind, where I am surrounded by so many members of the medical profession. I would merely offer as an excuse for my intervention that I have provided quite a number of doctors from my own family, and have studied them very closely from their first year until they eventually took their Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons.
I want to speak on that part of the Bill that deals with the one year. I think it could be amended to give us something better. I deplore the fact that it is another year, because there are very few medical students who manage to get through their courses in orderly progression from year to year. Often the most brilliant student can be unlucky in the final, and, willy-nilly, have to wait for a further six months. The public fail to realise, I believe, that the faculty itself lays down a very high standard for entrants to study medicine. I have found, time and again, with at least three of my children that the ordinary school-leaving certificate, the highest, was not accepted by the faculty. The children had to sit again another examination either for physics or for mathematics or for something that the school certificate has excluded.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said that the curriculum was overloaded and so, I believe, did the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I would like to ask any of the doctors here which part they would throw overboard, beginning at the first year. Would they cut down on physics, chemistry, biology, zoology or anatomy? The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove indicated that he would, yet it is recorded in the biography of Lord Lister that he took seven years, I think it was, for anatomy. And James

Bridie the playwright, one of whose plays is "The Anatomist," also confesses to the years that it took to get his second professional anatomy and physiology. Surely neither of those could be dropped, or materia medica, or any of the clinical subjects that follow in the later years.
The curriculum may be overloaded, but the number of "ploughs" in the finals indicates that there is a curriculum overloaded that could very well be stretched out. There is the public aspect of this matter. The overloading from the public point of view at the moment is 4,000 patients per doctor. That is the overloading I would like to see something done in the Bill to help out with that situation. The proposals in the Bill will hinder rather than help. The Bill lays down—

Mr. Bevan: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I would not like it to go out that there are 4,000 patients per doctor in this country. It is nothing like an average of 4,000 patients per doctor. Actually, the maximum is 4,000 patients per doctor.

Mrs. Mann: I am not sure that that is so, because at Question Time the Secretary of State for Scotland was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Trades-ton (Mr. Rankin) whether he thought he could reduce this 4,000 to 3,800. [HON. MEMBERS: "As a maximum."] Well, as a maximum, but the Secretary of State for Scotland could not promise any particular date for reducing it. Even 3,800 as a maximum is far too many.
I want now to look at the six months that is proposed to be added for each medical graduate. Six months would be insufficient for a graduate who is to specialise. I do not know, from my own experience, any doctors who have not taken far more than these six months. It is not so necessary for those entering general practice. I speak from experience, from a very close experience, of watching the studies, indeed with my heart in my mouth watching the result of the examinations and then the development afterwards. Here is what I found. Those of my family who go in for specialisation, require more than six months in a hospital. They require perhaps 10 years. Others who are going in for general practice find that the six months is useless. They are clerks.
Just take the set-up of a hospital. A young houseman or housewoman has to choose a ward. They probably reckon that general practice is as great a specialisation as anything, and I agree. The student has to serve six months in the ear, nose and throat ward. The doctor may have to serve his six months in orthopaedics, clinical medicines or clinical surgery just as a clerk, whereas the doctors outside are short of trainee assistants and are waiting for young men and women.
Why not amend the Bill and let the registration be not merely in a hospital but under a general practitioner? I know nothing better than that a young person should serve under the eager supervision of a man who has been serving the public as a general practitioner year in year out. I think the method is that the young doctor goes round to the patients one day and the old doctor goes round the next day. What a grand education that is for a young trainee.
Why not extend these provisions so that graduates in medicine who are going in for general practice may register provisionally with a doctor of experience in general practice? Otherwise, I think that the six months or a year as a houseman is just a waste of time and is not helping the general practitioners who are overloaded at the moment. I hope that the Clause will be re-examined and that the Bill will be amended during the Committee stage.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Fort: One of the reasons why it has been possible to give this Bill such an easy passage this evening is that we have been guided in so many of our thoughts by the improvements made in another place to the original Bill. The reason why someone who is not of the profession, like myself, wishes to speak, particularly on the clauses about medical training, is that those of us who have had training in technical fields similar to those in medicine often make comparisons between the training we had and that which our friends who are doctors have had.
It seems to me that one of the noticeable features of a doctor's training and his practice subsequently is that it is the most curious mixture of science and art. There is almost an art, based upon the judgment

of a particular set of circumstances, in diagnosing the condition of each patient, and there is certainly science in so far as doctors are trained, like those of us who take chemistry, physics and biology, in measurement and in comparison and then can use those methods in diagnosis and treatment. Medicine never looks likely to become an exact science in the way that physics and chemistry are, and this parallel course of science and experience must therefore continue.
The purpose of the first six Clauses of the Bill will be to give a better opportunity to those who are training to be doctors to gain the experience which they must have if they are to face their patients with confidence, and, also, as most of us in the Chamber at the moment are patients, if we are to face the new doctors with confidence.
With regard to the question of medical students spending up to an extra year on gaining clinical experience in hospitals or health centres, there are certain practical features about which perhaps the Under Secretary of State for Scotland will give us further details? First, will it be possible for the hon. Lady to tell us what are the chances of there being enough space in the hospitals of England for all the house appointments envisaged first by the Goodenough Report and now by this Bill? Will it be possible to administer the extra year's planning so that the interns will be able to have 20 or 30 beds in conformity with the Goodenough recommendations?
Then there is the question raised in that Report of free board and lodging for the interns. In implementing the Measure, will provision be made for that, and if so, what sums of money are likely to be involved? Furthermore, will the hon. Lady be able to say anything about the rates of remuneration apart from saying, as was said in another place, that the rate for the job would be paid? These are important matters because we need to know whether we are talking about an improvement in medical education which will take place within the next two years or so, or whether we are looking forward to something which will only bear fruit within the next decade.
We are all grateful that, at long last, this Bill clears up the ambiguity about doctors trained in Ireland because we


know that conditions would have been even worse than they are at present if we had not had the advantage of drawing on doctors from Ireland. It is because we on this side of the House think that the Bill is of great importance in medical education that all of us commend it on its way to Second Reading and will look forward to speeding it through its later stages.

8.53 p.m.

Dr. Broughton: This is a short Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has described it as a modest Bill but, nevertheless, it is important. It is of considerable interest to members of the medical profession because of the effect it is intended to have on the doctors of the future. When I say that my opinion of it differs from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) it will not be the first time that doctors have disagreed. I cannot share the views he holds on the need for uniformity, but I am sure that he and I are united in a sincere desire to improve medical services still further so that patients may receive the best treatment possible.
I welcome the Bill because it aims at raising the standards of medical efficiency and conduct. That part of it which relates to the General Medical Council and to its medical disciplinary committee I see as designed to maintain a high standard of ethics, and to be fair and just both to the profession and to the public.
The part of the Bill on which I wish to speak mainly is that which affects medical education by requiring proof of experience before the granting of full registration. The benefits to be derived from a period of post-graduate work under supervision in hospital are no recent discovery. We have known of them for a long time. Many of us did this in the past; more are doing it today. But there have been a number of doctors who have been denied that valuable experience by lack of funds.
Now that all intern post-graduate appointments carry with them remuneration, the financial obstacle has been removed from the path leading to greater proficiency, and I am sure that a period of service for every doctor will raise the standard of subsequent professional work.

The Goodenough Committee, which examined the question, were firmly of the opinion that the period ought not to be less than 12 months. It might appear, therefore, that we seek to add yet another year to the course of medical training, as several hon. Members have already mentioned. That is only correct, however, in so far as it affects a minority of students, because the majority of newly qualified men and women have, in their desire to gain useful experience, already undertaken post-graduate studies in hospitals and the majority of medical students have the firm intention of doing so.
I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health state that no injustice would be inflicted upon those students who are undergoing their course of training, who, for one reason or another, do not desire to have the year of post-graduate work in hospital and who began their medical duties on the understanding that they could qualify in six years.
The Bill may serve as a reminder that a course of training in medicine is a very long one, and that may lead, in turn, to a close examination of the medical curriculum. I was interested in the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), because they showed that they have applied their minds to this problem. The views which they expressed briefly are views which I share. Indeed, I wish that the Government had gone further in the Bill, because I think that the system of medical education (requires review, revision and reform.
Medicine, like other sciences, does not remain stationary, and every time that a discovery is made the medical student is given additional knowledge to absorb. It takes at least six years to qualify in medicine. The Bill seeks to make compulsory a further period of training, probably a year. The whole course is one of intensive training, and is becoming more so. The medical curriculum must be examined and pruned.
When the Minister of Health, the General Medical Council and the examining bodies bring their minds to bear upon this problem I hope they will realise that a sound knowledge of medicine does not of itself make a good doctor. The


expression "The family doctor" does not only mean the family's doctor, but also the family's friend and adviser on all manner of matters.
I regret very much that the universities have found it necessary to insist upon new entrants passing the first M.B. examination before admission, because it means that boys and girls have to begin the study of science in their early 'teens and to concentrate upon it alone for many years throughout the long and arduous course of medical training. I hope that the medical curriculum will soon be revised in such a manner as to allow the schoolboy to learn more about the arts, and possibly classics, before going to a university to embark upon years of intensive scientific study. I suggest this because I think that would provide the doctor with wider knowledge and make him still more capable of carrying the heavy burden of responsibility which is his when he enters practice.
This Bill is brought before Parliament for the purpose of improving medical training and increasing efficiency. I think it will do that. I see in its ultimate effect a better service for the patient, and for that reason I welcome it.

9.1 p.m.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Reginald Bennett: May I join with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and hon. Members opposite who have expressed their concern at the length of the curriculum and at the probable lengthening of it by this extra year of intern work? I cannot help feeling, however, with some confidence that a good deal of lopping is possible and that it can take place.
I can look back, not quite so far as some, upon the years I have spent in various ancillary occupations before ever I reached the clinical work of medicine, and I feel that many months of those years could have been better spent in getting ahead with medicine without prejudice to education or to one's maturity or judgment. I feel that the time spent in getting such an extremely minute knowledge of anatomy that a mass of mnemonics are required in order to carry it in one's head, is quite unnecessary, although it may be convenient to those

who are to become surgeons in specialised fields.
I never found my studies of botany did me very much good in medicine. The sex life of the male fern did me no good whatever and when it came to the subject of zoology, although in my embryonic stage I resembled a dog-fish and therefore the anatomy of a dog-fish was good to learn, I cannot believe that it applied to the anatomy of the cockroach, which I had to learn in minute detail. There are many fields in which sweeping changes can be made to compensate for some of the lengthening that will be required. I had to pass an examination in divinity before I could pass my medical examination, but that did not help my clinical skill one jot or tittle.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Mind over matter?

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I hope we may have some assurance on this matter. Another thing which struck me is that I suppose that when we have these extra hospital posts there will be some kind of reduced status and responsibility' for interns below those of the normal house physician or house surgeon of today. Presumably these posts have considerable responsibility, or they would not be worth having, but they will not have the full responsibility of the fully qualified person; and the house-physicians and house-surgeons will be upgraded and some of their work downgraded to some of the intern postgraduate students. Can we expect that the intern will have responsibility extending to the signing of death certificates and other things which are open only to fully fledged medical practitioners?

Dr. Morgan: Once on the Register, he is entitled to sign death certificates, or birth certificates.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Surely he cannot sign provisional death certificates.

Dr. Morgan: I think the hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. He may be provisionally registered, but he is really legally registered and entitled to sign death certificates and birth certificates.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I did not get that from a perusal of the Bill, but I am glad to find that desirable state of affairs.
There is another minor point which has occurred to me, although it is not perhaps a minor point to those concerned. The General Medical Council will be taking on the inspection of medical schools. I am sure that is a very good thing, but it has certain drawbacks in the case of some schools which are already highly organised within a university, because they can be inspected by their own university or the University Grants Committee. Are they to be liable to three forms of inspection? Furthermore, when the General Medical Council comes to inspect them, the Council, consisting as it does of members from other and possibly not even British medical schools, are the standards of those other schools to be brought to London or how are the standards to attain any homogeneity?
Another matter which has occurred to me is a rather grave affair about which I feel we shall perhaps hear more at a later stage. I refer to the question of the disciplinary powers and in particular the selection of the crime of adultery as the one type of civil case in which the General Medical Council disciplinary committee should not have power to call further evidence before pronouncing judgment on an erring doctor. I understand that criminal charges can be regarded as proved, the conviction being taken and action taken accordingly by the disciplinary committee of the General Medical Council. But adultery is a civil offence. Why when that is found proved in the divorce court, should that alone be selected as the one civil offence on which no further evidence can be offered to the General Medical Council before a decision is reached? That gives me some misgiving and I should like to hear more about it.
I would also refer to a further point affecting the graduating student. I cannot help feeling that in these days, when one's medical career and earnings are largely controlled by the State, it is a little hard on the student of all people to have to pay not only a registration fee but an increased one. He or she and his or her parents are probably the last people able to afford such moneys in these times. It

is not an entrance fee to a free-for-all as it may have been in the past. This is a profession in which the earnings are to be limited, and at a time of the student's career when parents are groaning under the financial oppression, I would ask if it might not be possible for the severity of that fee to be eased.
I wish my welcome to this Bill to be added to all the others, and I feel sure that in it we have reached a milestone in medical practice.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Although in some respects this Bill does not go as far as I should have liked, I welcome it because it makes the education of British doctors, already the most practical in the world, even more practical. I have seen medical work in many countries in Europe on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and I am convinced that we have in this country the best general practitioners, the most widely knowledgeable doctors in Europe. The reason for that is because our education is already perhaps more practical than that of any other country. We depend less on lectures and demonstration and more upon practical examination and care of patients.
As I see it, the trouble today is that there is too sharp a division between the time when as a medical student the young doctor has very few responsibilities, and never has to make decisions, and the time when he suddenly becomes qualified and then finds that the life and death of his patients depend upon his diagnosis and sometimes even upon his treatment. I think that hon. Members of this House who are also members of the medical profession will agree that the most anxious and exacting time of their lives was not when they were waiting to make their maiden speeches, but when they first went into practice alone. I remember very well when, many years ago, without having taken an appointment at my hospital, having to wait some four months, I went into general practice as assistant to a doctor in North London, with, of course, much trepidation. But my anxiety was tremendously increased when, a few weeks after I had started, my principal suddenly announced that he proposed to take a week's holiday. I said, "What shall I do? May I call in the doctor opposite if I get into difficulties?"


This was a good many years ago, before the National Health Service Act, when practice was purely competitive. He said, "No." I think he went so far as to say, "My dear idiot, that is the one thing you must not do." And so I was left alone.
I feel that the Bill is a very good thing in that it makes the division between irresponsibility and responsibility gradual. I do not believe in too early specialisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) suggested that a man might be wanting to specialise in leprosy and the care of lepers; he asked why he should take appointments in medicine in surgery. Clearly, the answer is that his patients who are lepers may suffer from medical and surgical conditions in addition to leprosy and they may require his advice accordingly.
While I accept completely the general principles of the Bill, I feel that between now and the Report stage careful thought will have to be given as to how they can be carried out. I cannot see that there is enough suitable appointments for interns to go round. There are some hospitals where the young doctor will learn, mainly, what not to do. There are other hospitals, teaching hospitals, where the physician or surgeon has drawn to him cases of a special type, and these he treats, usually by operations. Such cases may be relatively rare and though of great importance may be such that a young doctor who goes into practice may not be likely to meet many of them. Therefore, although such appointments will be very valuable for the training of specialists, I do not think they will be of much value for the general practitioner.
There are difficulties in deciding whether a young doctor's work is satisfactory and there are difficulties in the case of a physically handicapped person. What about the man who has lost the whole, or part, of his hand? He certainly cannot be an efficient house surgeon, or indeed in my opinion take an appointment as an obstretrician. Yet the Bill says that he has to serve part of his time in one of these capacities. I should like to know what is to happen to such a person. We are told, and very rightly, that service in a health centre would do just as well as service in a hospital, and I am glad of that. But at present the health centres do not exist. Moreover,

while I agree that to help an efficient doctor in a health centre would be most valuable training for a general practitioner, I feel that service in a special department in a health centre should only count as training for a specialist.
There are two other points I wish to discuss. I am disappointed about the constitution of the General Medical Council. It has been recognised generally that it is safe to leave the conduct of most professions mainly in the hands of members of those professions. I do not think that the public have any cause to regret that policy. We passed in this House only a couple of years ago the Nurses Act which reorganised the General Nursing Council which deals with the education of nurses as well as the conditions of service in that profession. There we provided for 34 members, of which 17 are being elected by the nurses. Here we have the General Medical Council which the Minister has told us is to consist of 47 members, of whom only 11 are to be elected by the profession. Are doctors less responsible than nurses?
Lastly, there is the disciplinary procedure. I agree that the Bill provides for a great improvement. The right of appeal is a great advantage to doctors. But I am not quite satisfied. I should like there to be some less penalty than that of being struck off the Register. According to this Bill, if the disciplinary committee decide that a doctor must be struck off the Register for some dishonourable or undesirable conduct, the doctor cannot apply for replacement for 11 months. By that time any doctor's practice will have gone to pieces. This will mean that the doctor will have to start again and probably, with his record, he may have considerable difficulty in rehabilitating himself in the profession. Careful consideration should be given to discover whether some lesser penalty should be introduced. In spite of these weaknesses, which, I hope, will be put right on the Committee stage, I strongly commend the Bill to the House.

9.19 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I find myself in agreement with the majority of those who have welcomed this Bill although it is indeed a small, modest and unassuming Measure which does not pretend to go very far. There is nothing particularly handicapping


in life about modesty. Lots of folk have shown that they can do very well even though they are somewhat small or petite, as I am sure the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will agree.
The Bill has caused some anxiety to the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan). I wondered whether he was right in denigrating and blaming it because there is not contained in it the power to compel each and every medical school to set up a chair in industrial medicine. I would have thought that every university and every medical school in the country would readily and gladly set up a chair in industrial medicine, and indeed in social medicine, too, if they had the money available, and what we have to do is to discover some way of finding the financial assistance for universities, and then we might impose the means upon them. That is a suggestion which I offer to my hon. Friend as a friend and colleague, and I hope he will consider it in that way.
It has been said that this Bill consists of two parts, educational and penal, and I quite agree that, broadly, it does fall into these two divisions. We have heard quite a lot of the qualities that will make a man into a good general practitioner, and much has been said about his capacity for accepting responsibility. Of course, I agree that this is a touchstone, but there is such a thing as having a sense of vocation, which is just as important. I remember that, when I was associated with a surgeon in my medical school days, his attitude was that three things, and only three, were needed if one was to be a good surgeon, or indeed a good medical man. One must have a sense of vocation, the heart of a lion and the hand of a lady, and I think that is obviously correct.
Without a sense of vocation, no one will accept fully the sense of responsibility in work of this type, where life and death are at stake. No one, without a sense of vocation, will put in the number of hours which only Members of Parliament and members of the medical profession are prepared to put in. Without the heart of a lion, one may shrink at times from responsibility without the umbrella and the cover of the senior man. But that is a point which has been already adequately covered by my hon. Friend

who has just spoken. Without the hand of a lady, one cannot be sensitive enough to understand that the pain and suffering of the patient belongs also to oneself. Without the hand of a lady, one would not be worthy of the name of doctor.
There are certain other questions which we shall want to ask during the Committee stage, but this is not the time to discuss them at any length, and I think they can safely be left to the next stage of the Bill. There are, however, certain aspects that disturb some of us. In spite of the suggestion that there is to be a year's extra work before full qualification, the word "satisfactory" is used, and we shall want to know what is meant by "satisfactory." We would also like to know whether, if certain men and women during their training are injured or crippled, or if they fall ill, possibly with infantile paralysis, they are to be denied any opportunity of further work or of service with approved institutions. We shall want to know how long they may have to wait, and, if by any chance there are no immediate opportunities for entry, we shall want to know how long it will be before they may register. But all these are matters which we can leave to the Committee stage.
On the penal side of the Bill, I welcome the matters that are there dealt with and which fall apparently into two simple improvements. One is that there is now a court of appeal. The work of the G.M.C. in its penal aspect more closely resembles a court-martial than a court of law, and I am glad to see it suggested that, if the court-martial type is to remain, it will be improved. At any rate, the court will be smaller, and will handle cases better, in addition to which there will be greater representation by elected representatives of the profession.
The right of appeal is another and even more important change which we find here, and we are all very glad about it. Here again, on the penal aspect, there are certain changes which we hope to bring about by Amendments during the Committee stage. We must separate the judicial from the executive functions of the Council, so far as the procedure of the disciplinary committee is concerned. Let us be certain, too, that no one who has been concerned with a preliminary investigation shall sit later upon the disciplinary committee itself. It would not


be reasonable for anyone who has sifted the cases to say, "I recommend this one as suitable to put before a disciplinary committee." No one who has been in that position should then sit on the disciplinary committee to give judgment on the case. There is a difference between discrimination and—I was going to say execution—judgment.
Lastly, I hope we shall be able in future to see that no action is taken against a medical man unless a formal and written complaint is sent in and can be supported by whoever has made it. I remember the first time that I ever went to Venice and looked into the lion's mouth. Some medical men have to look into the lion's mouth, the mouth that sometimes has anonymous documents dropped into it, in the same way as they used to be dropped into the mouth of the lion at Venice when people wished to inform anonymously against someone. I think that anyone who informs against a medical man or woman should be asked to support his complaint by a written document and should be called upon, if necessary, to appear to substantiate it.

Dr. Morgan: Is that enough?

Dr. Stross: At any rate, I think that would be some improvement on the situation which has existed up to now.

Dr. Morgan: I am thinking of the Hennessey case in which the charge was made by the complainant in writing, and the G.M.C. struck him off. Yet when Dr. and Mrs. Hennessey were, very wisely, advised to take an action against the complainant, they won, and the judge begged the G.M.C. not to be so silly.

Dr. Stross: That is what I have been discussing. It has been unsatisfactory, and we want to see an improvement in the future.
May I say again that, so far as it goes, this Bill is very welcome to all of us. Even if it does not go far enough, we shall do our best on the Committee stage, and it may not be the end even then.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Linstead: At the end of this very interesting Debate there really remains very little to be said. Nevertheless, there are one or two speeches

upon which I desire to comment very briefly. I think that someone during the Debate might have seized the opportunity to pay a tribute to the General Medical Council for the work they have done in the educational and disciplinary fields over a very long period of years, and in conditions of some difficulty. I have attended sessions of the General Medical Council sitting in its disciplinary capacity, and I have been amazed at the way in which an extremely clumsy machine managed to function with what certainly appeared to an onlooker to be efficiency and justice. It was not the quality of the Council which was at fault, but the difficulty of the appeal which tended, perhaps, to give it a bad name.
I think that in Committee we shall have to examine a little more carefully the full implications of this extra year or extra six months. There seems to be a certain amount of misunderstanding among members of the medical profession and Members of this House. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) seemed to consider it would be no more than a repetition of the house posts, and to contemplate that one of those duly qualified men in the future might go straight away to a speciality for his six months. That, I take it, is quite remote from the intention in having this period. One assumes that a completely new type of post is to be created in hospitals, which will enable the young, duly qualified man to move rapidly round among different departments and to get a bird's eye view of the profession; and that it will be a period not of specialists but of general training.
I sympathise with the hon. Member who discussed the question of overloading and undue specialisation. It is something from which every profession is suffering. I feel that there is no simple answer. We cannot cut out of the curriculum of a scientific profession—and medicine, after all, is a scientific profession—any substantial amount of its basic science. As science advances so the medical practitioner, as do the specialists, must keep pace with it, and if there is to be found any answer it can be partly, I think, in the direction of the qualified practitioner relying upon specialists in other branches in professions allied to medicine for a great deal of the technical work which at present he


does himself. The radiographer and the physiotherapist, for example, must have responsibility upon their shoulders. Moreover, in the teaching of the sciences more attention must be paid to making them a part of a liberal education. We dare not substitute the arts for science, because science is a necessity in the training of medical students. So, the answer is to be found in the method of training, and I believe that a scientific education can be a liberal education just as much as an education in the arts.
There is a very large number of minor points which we shall be able to deal with in Committee. I am not quite certain that we have got this situation with regard to the Irish curriculum quite clear. As I understand it, it is this: if Ireland imposes the same period as we do, then the two countries will march in step. What we are not quite clear about is the situation which arises if we impose it and the Republic of Ireland does not impose it at the same time, and I expect the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that there is an arrangement between the two Governments for the two things to be done at the same time. If so, the difficulty disappears.
Some consideration will have to be given to the conditions in which health centres are to be approved for this period of a year's training. There are about a dozen health centres in existence at the present time, and I should think that only one of them at present is fit for the training of general practitioners. Therefore, the Minister of Health will have to turn his attention to the standards very carefully. That we shall have to look at in Committee. I think also we shall want to look at the disciplinary machine a little bit more closely. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), I am a little concerned about the position of the penal cases committee. I think that no member of the General Medical Council can at the same time be a member of the penal cases or disciplinary committees. I think that is clear. We must also be careful that the penal cases committee does not assume to itself part of the function of the disciplinary committee. By being the first sieve, it should sift out a number of cases which really ought to go on to the disciplinary committee to be determined.
I also hope that the Minister will have another look at the point we raised, about a finding of fact in a case involving adultery in a matrimonial cause being binding on the Council, but no other finding of fact of the High Court in a civil case, and no other finding of the High Court in a civil case which may involve adultery in some other type of action than a matrimonial cause. It seems to me very curious that that one particular and very limited example should have been chosen for binding the General Medical Council in acceptance of facts and the hearing of further evidence. I am sure that wants looking at again.

Dr. Stross: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a difference in these cases, and that in effect the Council would constitute itself into an appeal court in certain types of divorce case if it were not to accept the facts as proved?

Mr. Linstead: I realise the argument, but I do not think we have time to go into it now. I am only saying that if a finding of the High Court in one particular type of case is to be accepted as binding, then one wants to look very carefully to find why a similar state of affairs is not to apply in other cases.
There are only three other matters to which I want to refer, and to all of them quite briefly. Personally, I welcome the introduction, for the first time in this type of legislation, of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Hitherto the High Court has been the court of appeal from the professional tribunals. Owing to constitutional changes in the Dominions, the status of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is obviously changing, and it may be a very happy innovation here to give to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council a new type of jurisdiction. Most of the professions value their association with the Privy Council, and if we can gradually substitute the Judicial Committee for the High Court as the court of appeal for professional tribunals we may find that we have introduced a very useful innovation into our legal system.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett) drew attention to a difficulty that may arise in connection with overlapping inspections by the University Grants Committee, the General Medical Council and the parent


university itself. For some years now I have served as an inspector for the Pharmaceutical Society when inspecting schools and universities jointly with the University of London, and we have found no difficulty in so arranging those inspections that, although two bodies were concerned, the reports were unanimous and both bodies acted in step, one with the other. I am sure that can be done.
My last point is a rather specialised one that has not yet been dealt with in this Debate, except by the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan), when he said that the one function of the General Medical Council that is well done is the supervision of the British Pharmacopoeia. Curiously enough, that is one of its functions which the General Medical Council does not perform, but hands over to someone else to perform. Had the hon. Member for Warrington realised that, his condemnation of the G.M.C. would have been complete and absolute, and I am glad to make that little present to him.

Dr. Morgan: No, thank you.

Mr. Linstead: Originally, in 1858, the British Pharmacopoeia was a book of compounded medicines primarily. As the years have passed it has changed and become a book of simple substances and chemicals which are used as ingredients of medicine. As the years have passed it has become not a book for doctors, but a book for manufacturing chemists and public analysts, and I think that very few general practitioners will find it necessary to refer to the British Pharmacopoeia. The General Medical Council were, originally, quite an appropriate body to supervise the production of this book, but with the passage of years they have ceased to be the appropriate body and have handed the duty over to the Pharmacopoeia Commission, composed of one or two doctors, but mainly of chemists and pharmacists.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to assure us that we are not crystallising by the chance reference to the British Pharmacopoeia in this Bill the existing method of producing the Pharmacopoeia which is by no means suitable in all quarters. I sincerely hope that the Bill will have a Second Reading, and that we may make what little improvements are necessary in Committee.

9.41 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): It has been a very pleasant and agreeable Debate. The last two-and-a-half hours in the House have been very different from those that went before. I think that with only one exception this Bill has received acceptance from both sides of the House. There has been much criticism of the overloading of the curriculum in the medical schools, and I feel that the Debate may bear some fruit in that matter. I am certain that those who have discussed it did so from a very full knowledge and from their own experience, and I hope there will be some examination of the curriculum.
I should like to take up the points made by the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan). He said that there ought to be a power of direction, possibly vested in the General Medical Council, to direct universities and medical schools as to what should be taught in them; and he referred particularly to the teaching of industrial medicine. I am sure that everyone in the House agrees that industrial medicine is of the greatest importance. The Trades Union Congress are seriously considering this matter and they feel that sufficient time is not given to it, but I think that the hon. Member for Warrington was a little less than fair when he suggested that in our medical schools and universities almost nothing was being done in the field of industrial medicine. We find that in the Universities of Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle there are departments of industrial medicine.

Dr. Morgan: I mentioned those particularly.

Miss Herbison: I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I am going to follow on with what else is being done. I was particularly interested in the point made on this matter by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) when he suggested that one of the great difficulties was the lack of finance. The three universities that I have mentioned have been provided for in these courses of industrial medicine by the Nuffield Foundation. In addition to the three departments mentioned by the hon. Member for Warrington, it is known that there are one or more lecturers in industrial medicine, industrial health or industrial hygiene in Birmingham


Bristol, Edinburgh, London and Sheffield. We do not say at this point that we are satisfied with that as sufficient, but what we are absolutely satisfied about is that the correct way of getting either industrial medicine or any other subject into the curriculum is not by vesting power of direction in the General Medical Council. That would be a very serious matter indeed, and one which, I am certain, not only the medical profession would object to, but also people all over the country.
There may be one way of overcoming this difficulty. Quite a number of questions have been raised in this Debate about the duplication of visitation. In another place this was discussed and we hope an arrangement will be come to by which there will be, in effect, only one set of visitors. Great improvement is made in the provisions of this Bill by which visitors not merely examine an examination, but really examine what is being taught in the medical schools. We would hope that in that way the General Medical Council will be able by persuasion, not by force, to make those changes in the curriculum which public opinion seems to think necessary.
Another point was raised by the hon. Member for Warrington with which I must deal. He seems to take grave objection to this year which we term the intern period. Other Members have dealt with some of the points he made. He made a very strong point that this would be very hard on the young student from a working-class home. That may have been the case some years ago. I am speaking for Scotland now and perhaps not for England and Wales, but in Scotland today the young man or woman coming from a working-class home is able, with help particularly from local authorities, to take the whole course for a medical degree without costing his parents one penny of finance. That is an important point to remember when weighing this year against the difficulties that may be entailed. We have also to remember that during this intern year the young doctor will be receiving a salary.
A number of points were raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Gosport and Fareham (Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett). I have dealt with one of them—the examinations, where we hope that by arrangement there will be one pretty

big visitation. He wanted to know whether the doctor when provisionally on the register can sign a death certificate. He can. He also wanted to know—and this was also raised by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) who wound up for the Opposition—why there had been selected in the Bill one single case in which the disciplinary committee could not re-examine the evidence. I think the answer was given from this side of the House on that matter; it is that it would create very great difficulties if provision was not made for this kind of case. On the other hand, it may be that after examination we may decide that other cases ought to be put into the same category as this one which we have chosen. This one was chosen because it is the one which in the past has most often come before the General Medical Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) seemed also to think that this period of a year's intern service was not a good thing. Indeed, she had grave doubts about it, and wanted to know if this year could be spent in general practice as a trainee assistant. This would be completely contrary to the findings of the Goodenough Report, which strongly recommended this intern period. It would also be contrary to the views that have been expressed by the General Medical Council.
We find in our Empire countries, in New South Wales and in South Africa, and I believe also in the United States of America, that the intern period is done in hospitals or in similar institutions. For these reasons we feel that the provision in the Bill is correct. We feel that the best experience can be got in hospitals and in similar institutions, and that if we were to yield to the suggestion that this period might be in general practice there would be very great difficulty indeed over proper supervision. What we would suggest is that it would be much preferable to wait and find what will be the results of the working of the provisions of the Bill before we make any further extension for experience in general practice among doctors. Indeed, I would say that the majority of doctors have had their first year, or two years or even more, as trainee assistants with other doctors.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), and I think an hon. Member on the other side, were rather afraid that those who served on the penal cases committee would be serving also on the disciplinary committee. They suggested that that would be completely wrong. What we find in other fields does not bear out the contention that it is wrong. There is nothing in other fields to justify the contention that a man's judgment will be prejudiced if he tries in the first instance to find whether there is a primâ facie case for inquiry. If we take the solicitors' committee, we find that they first seek to find whether there is a primâ facie case. Then that same committee go on to hear it. There is another instance among the justices of the peace in England. When they have committed a case for trial at the quarter sessions, they can, and very often do, sit at the quarter sessions. In the case of the solicitors or of the justices of the peace, I do not think it can be contended that they have shown in the past that they are prejudiced; but this is a point that may be worth discussion in Committee.
Quite a number of questions have been asked about the supply of posts. Will it be possible in the near future to begin to make compulsory this one year of intern training? There was much discussion on this question in another place, where the figure of 12 months was taken out. We are still leaving it at 12 months, but we cannot at this stage say how soon we can make the figure work. We decided that it was important to have on the Statute Book power to make preparation. We have gone into the figures. There may in Scotland be more difficulty than in England and Wales because in Scotland we train a third of the doctors produced in the whole of the British Isles. In going into that position, we have come to the conclusion that we may not be able to provide the full number of places in Scotland, and that perhaps England will provide the beds for these other doctors whom we train.
A question has been asked about Ireland and what will really be the position of Ireland. A doctor qualifying in the Republic who wants to get on the Register—that is the important point—must from an appointed day do intern service in the same way as a doctor

qualifying here. That is under Clause 1 (1, a). I hope that makes it clear to those who were in difficulty about this position.
Many other points have been raised, but again, I am certain that they can be brought up during the Committee stage, and I recommend that the Bill be given its Second Reading tonight. There is, however, one point which was raised by the hon. Member for Putney, who was a bit worried that we were laying down for all time what will be the composition of the body which prepares the British Pharmacopoeia. No Act can ever do anything for all time, and all we are doing in Clause 22 is to make adjustments which have been rendered necessary by the progress of science; there is a great deal of obsolete language in the Pharmacopoeia, and the adjustments will also meet practical difficulties. That is all that Clause 22 does in this matter. I again commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Linstead: Before the hon. Lady sits down, may I ask did I understand her to say that the arrangements for producing the Pharmacopoeia have not been re-examined from the bottom and approved, so to speak, in 1950 by the Minister?

Miss Herbison: No, Sir. I give the assurance that it was only for the two reasons which I have given.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Sparks.]

ALLOTMENTS [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to allotments and to abolish restrictions on the keeping of hens and rabbits, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

(i) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in paying compensation under the said Act; and
(ii) any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act in the sums which, under any other enactment, are payable out of moneys so provided; and,

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by a Minister of the Crown or government department by way of compensation under the said Act."

GAS INDUSTRY (PENSION SCHEME)

9.58 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite - Eyre: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 9th May, 1950, entitled the Gas (Pensions Scheme) (Amendment) Regulations, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 742), a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, he annulled.
The House will remember that under Section 58 of the Gas Act the Government were given the right to approve any schemes put forward either by the Gas Council or an area board to take over a pensions scheme that was in existence before the nationalisation of the gas gas industry. They were given carte blanche either to approve or not to approve any scheme then in existence and to accept whatever schemes they might feel fell within the ambit of natural justice and, of course, the terms of Section 58.
These powers were exercised and presented to this House in Statutory Instrument No. 744 of 1949, and as far as I know the powers under that Regulation have been exercised well and no complaint has been raised to their use. In fact, I think it would be true to say that those who were subject to schemes taken over within the ambit of that Statutory Instrument have been well satisfied with the treatment which the Government has given them.
But these Regulations introduce a new element and something which is outside either the terms of Section 58 or of the regulations which could be prescribed under Statutory Instrument No. 744 of 1949. Indeed, if a new element had not been introduced there was no need for this specious proposition that members of the Gas Council and of the area boards had to be covered by a special regulation.
The regulation produced in 1949 gives the Minister power to approve any scheme which affects any member within the industry. Those are the terms of paragraph 1 of that Regulation. That is quite right, but just as in private industry if someone joins the board of a firm he is entitled to take part in whatever pension scheme may be available, so one would naturally expect that anyone who joins one of the gas boards or the Gas Council should automatically be entitled

to benefits that are available under a Statutory Instrument. But we have something quite new here, something which I think is being pushed through with no reference in the Explanatory Note and which demands an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. I refer to the words in line 3 of paragraph 2 (c) of the present Regulations "or entitled to rights," and to where it says later that in lieu of those rights they may make some arrangement with the area board or with the Gas Council.
It is fair to say at the outset that the only possible reason for the introduction of these words is that the Ministry wish to go outside the terms of the Statutory Instrument they laid before the House in 1949, and wish to include some new category of persons whom they could not justify under any scheme taken over under Section 58 or, indeed, under any terms of the Gas (Nationalisation) Act. If that be true, then there are only two sets of circumstances in which this could happen.
The first one, which I do not think is likely to occur, is where the Ministry have decided that in relation to people who are not covered by Section 58 they will now wield the big stick. That is in relation to people, for instance, who, two years before the Act was passed, were approached to take service once the industry was nationalised, who took the opportunity for one reason or another, who joined in good faith, whose pensions were in excess of what could be provided under Section 58, and who are now faced with an ultimatum by the Ministry that unless they reduce the terms of the pension claims they have they will not be allowed to have any part in any scheme that the Minister has put forward.
That is the first possibility and, of course, it can only apply to those people who are least fitted to meet such a burden for instance, members of a trade union who are serving on an area board or on the Gas Council. They might have certain minor claims which would be absorbed within the major emoluments they are now receiving from an area board. It might well be that the area board is trying to beat down the claims of those people to a pension when they retire. I do not think that is likely, but it is a possible interpretation.
The only other interpretation is, from the viewpoint of the Ministry, a far worse


one; that is, that they have now found that they have signed contracts with people to serve either on a board or the Council which involve them in commitments for pensions which they cannot justify under any scheme under Section 58; that, in fact, we are getting the story of Sir Leslie Plummer all over again; that this time the Ministry are not waiting until they have to pay up but are now trying to shelve their responsibility by making provision beforehand. That, from the point of view of the Ministry, is a far worse interpretation of what these words mean.
Particularly is that so if one considers what the ordinary person who had to be compensated under the Gas (Staff Compensation) Regulations had to put up with. I ask that for a few minutes the House should think back to the terms with which people had to contend under those Regulations. They had to be over 18; but I do not think that that is a hardship as far as a member of an area board or the Gas Council is concerned. They must have served eight years before they could get in. Is the Parliamentary Secretary certain that there is no one serving on an area board or the Gas Council who cannot claim a pension compensation unless he serves eight years? I should be very doubtful whether the Parliamentary Secretary could give me that assurance.
Again, under the original regulations it had to be proved that 30 hours a week were served in the service of the gas industry. How many people who are to be covered under this new exception would be able to prove that? The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that because of the composition of the Gas Council and the area boards, most of the people concerned are on a part-time basis. Is he going to say that the regulations are to cover only those people who can prove that they have served 30 hours a week? Again, I doubt that very much. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say above all, that the restriction which was made before, that a person is not allowed to serve in any other capacity whatever if he wants compensation, will be observed?
One of the things that strikes me as very curious is how fond the Government are of introducing restrictive covenants in matters for which they are responsible,

and how righteous they are in wrath when those restrictive covenants are not produced by themselves. Of all the intolerable pieces of smugness, the difference between the treatment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Lord and Black case and what the Parliamentary Secretary is doing by these Regulations, in ensuring that restrictive covenants are to be part and parcel of his pension compensation terms, is something of which all Members of the House should take note.
I should like to know how many people who will be covered by this new phrase in the Regulations have had applied to them the four tests which I have mentioned, and how many are covered by them. Then, has this new test, or this new escape clause, which I think is a better term, been introduced merely to cover people who have been brought in from outside the industry and who are not covered by the Act and, therefore, special provision has to be made for them because they cannot be ground up under the terms of the Gas Act?
If that is so, and I think that it is, then surely it is all wrong that the House should pass, whether it be right or wrong, one set of pension regulations to cover people who have been in the industry, and to have a completely different set of pension regulations for people who were brought in from outside the industry once it has been nationalised, and who are allowed so much more scope and so much more benefit. That seems to be entirely wrong.
It appears, looking at the Regulations, that as we have said before, nothing is too bad for those who were in the industry and have made the industry and who are expropriated by the Government, but that nothing is too good for those who are brought into the industry who happen to climb on to the Left band wagon and obtain some sort of position on a board or the Council; then, a regulation is immediately introduced to exempt them from all the provisions which govern private enterprise and the people who are taken over by the Government.
Once they have managed to get on a board or the Council any rights they may have are accepted, considered and made exemptions to what is considered good enough for other people in the industry. I think that of the many regulations we


have seen, this one is open to the gravest exception because it shows once again how little the Government care about justice and how much they care about looking after "the boys," once they are under their charge.
It is for these reasons we bring forward this Prayer. We feel that those who so often stand at that Box and condemn the extravagance of private enterprise should be the last to introduce measures to which they dare not even put a limit in terms of cash, merely to satisfy their own requirements.

10.11 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I beg to second the Motion which has been moved so effectively by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre).
There is disquiet in the public mind on the subject of appointments which seem to be covered by the particular paragraph to which we are referring, and a measure of the disquiet may perhaps be judged by the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has also put his name to the Motion to annul these Regulations. I notice that the hon. and learned Member is not present. He may be on the Terrace or elsewhere—

Mr. Brendan Bracken: He may be going on a gas board.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: He may already be on a gas board for all we know. It is interesting to know that the hon. and learned Member is so disturbed by these Regulations that he wishes to see it annulled and is joining his Tory colleagues in seeking to get that done. On the other hand, there is just the chance that he is not so interested in that as to make sure that his Tory colleagues do not postpone the Regulations from this particular date to some other date. I do not know, but it would be interesting to hear the hon. and learned Member on the subject of this Prayer, and I hope that he will be here shortly.
I do not think anyone wants to stir up trouble, but it is important that we should have an assurance, or at least an explanation, from the Minister of what is the real purpose of bringing forward

these Regulations. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, it seems to us that the previous Regulations covered all the cases which seem to be required to be covered but in these Regulations we find that certain people entitled to rights—not pension rights, but other rights—are to be considered for some special treatment in connection with their service on an area board or on the Gas Council.
I feel sure the Minister will tell us quite frankly the type of person to whom that is expected to refer. The Regulations cannot have been brought forward merely for fun, but must have been brought forward with some particular class of person in view whom the Minister thinks are not covered by the previous Regulations and it is to ascertain that information in the interests of the country as a whole, and of the taxpayers who, after all, have to produce the money, that we move this Prayer tonight. I hope we shall have a clear and succinct description and explanation of why the Regulations are considered to be necessary in view of the existence of the previous Regulations.

10.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I have listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) and the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). I am somewhat puzzled to follow their line of reasoning. Indeed, at one stage I felt that the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest was really talking about regulations for compensation for loss of office. This is a very simple set of regulations which refer to quite specific people. They propose that where there is a man who was in the employ of a gas undertaking before nationalisation, and who then became a member of an area board it is a fair, right and proper thing that when the pension scheme which is provided for in the previous regulation to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, No. 744, is prepared and in operation he should then become a member of that scheme if he so desires. Those concerned are not forced into this scheme in any way, and if they have other better rights under the main Act they are perfectly free to pursue those rights.
These Regulations mean that a man would, if he became a member of an area board, be then allowed to calculate the whole of his service in the undertaking in which he was in pensionable employment as part of the terms of membership of the new scheme together with the period which he serves on the area board.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Parliamentary Secretary said that these Regulations cover only people who were in the industry and then became members of an area board. Could he say where that is mentioned in the Regulations?

Mr. Robens: That is what I am saying. It covers only those persons who were in the gas industry. That is in the Regulations. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member does not wish me to read out the whole of the Regulations. If he will allow me to finish what I am saying I will return to the point and indicate the lines in question. I am trying to answer some of the points which hon. and gallant Members opposite have raised. They have asked me what these Regulations mean, and I should like to say what they mean. We can then get down to details if hon. Gentlemen wish me to do so. All we are doing is to enable those people who were in the industry prior to nationalisation to have that period of service computed in the new scheme together with any service which they serve as members of an area board.

Mr. Bracken: Would the Parliamentary Secretary show us where in the Regulations there appears what he has told us, because there is nothing about it in this particular piece of ill-contrived language at which we are looking? Would the hon. Gentleman also oblige the House by telling us whether, in calculating pensions, the basis of remuneration is the inflated pay of a board member or the salary or wage paid to that person before he joins a gas board?

Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman is running a little before he has learned to walk. I am amazed at hon. Gentlemen opposite should ask me to point to the part of the Regulations which proves the point I am now making. The whole of the Regulations say it but I will read the relevant part, because it is

apparent hon. Gentlemen have not been able to read it—they probably have not had the time. In the Regulations they will see:
(2) For the purposes of any such pension scheme as aforesaid"—
that should appeal to the hon. Gentleman—
the service of any person as a whole-time member of an Area Board or the Gas Council may be treated as if it were service in the employment of the said Board or Council, if that person"—
then follow three provisos. The first contains the subject matter of what I am now saying, that if that person
was subject to the scheme in question immediately before becoming such a member.
If hon. Gentlemen will allow me to proceed and finish this broad case it will be revealed to them in complete simplicity. If I may be pardoned for repeating what I have already said, those persons employed in a gas undertaking immediately before gas nationalisation, and who became members of a gas board after nationalisation, will be able to join the new scheme provided for under Regulation No. 744 and compute all those years of service in the industry as part of the new scheme.
Those persons who were appointed to area boards before the vesting date will be in precisely the same position, provided that they were in pensionable employment within the gas industry. I think the House will agree it is perfectly clear that in these public corporations many men will rise from the ranks, and in due course, as ability determines, will become members of area boards. It would be quite wrong to say to an area manager, "We would like you, because of your great efficiency and the work you do so well, to become a member of the board; but if you do become a member, you will forfeit all your pension rights for the 30 or 40 years which you have had in the gas undertaking." The men would not regard that as promotion, and obviously, for financial reasons, they could not take it.
We feel it not unreasonable to say that when they have promotion they may commute all these years of back service for the purpose of a pension, together with their service on the area board, and I am certain that no one would say that that is not a right and proper thing to do. That is all that the Regulations do. They do not apply to anyone else, they apply


only to those persons who are members of an area board or the Gas Council and who have former employment with the undertaking with pensionable rights. With that explanation I think hon. Gentlemen opposite should thank me, and agree to withdraw the Motion.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Far from thanking the Parliamentary Secretary, we have to confess to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the fairly long experience of Parliament which most of us have had, we have never heard such a strange explanation from a Minister.

Mr. Poole: We shall hear a stranger one from you.

Mr. Bracken: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt?

Mr. Poole: All I said was that if hon. Members wait a little while, they will hear a very much stranger one from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bracken: The wit of the hon. Gentleman is the least admirable quality which he possesses.
The Parliamentary Secretary was described by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) as a donor of "jobs for the boys." I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend was absolutely accurate. He ought to revise his language and say "therms for the boys" and take out the "h." This is a monstrous piece of jobbery, let us face up to it—

Mr. Messer: What a line bit of wit!

Mr. Bracken: The Minister has made secret arrangements with certain persons connected with the Gas Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he has, and he is anxious now to alter the Regulations so that he can fulfil arrangements which have never been scrutinised by this House—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh. I suppose they think we are talking about humble people. But no, I know of cases where people are being paid very large salaries indeed, salaries even outside the scope of these Regulation, and I know the reason for the Minister bringing in these changes in these

Regulations. He wants to legalise something unknown to this House, something which is thoroughly—

Mr. Poole: What is it?

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman will hear, if he does not interrupt. That great democrat, the Parliamentary Secretary, tells us that he is anxious to look after the youngsters about to rise to great positions in the gas industry. I am all for that, but in this particular case it is not the youngsters who are being rewarded; it is a number of quite elderly gentlemen who are seeking cushioned retirement.

Mr. Robens: It would be quite wrong if the right hon. Gentleman were permitted to get away too far with this. These Regulations apply to none of the people to whom he ascribes the term "jobs for the boys." They are all people with big positions in the gas industry. I do not want to bring politics into this Debate, but I doubt very much if any one of them was a supporter of my party. The fact is that these Regulations are only for those who were in the gas industry. Not one of them applies to anybody coming from anywhere else, who is a member of an area board.

Mr. Bracken: Now we have had a confession. These Regulations are apparently to look after the people who were what the Minister calls "big" in the gas industry. There are tens of thousands of small people who have been "bilked" of their profit-sharing arrangements by—

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with these Regulations.

Mr. Bracken: I was led into my error by the Minister. If the Minister will give us another opportunity of discussing his strange confession, we will gladly take advantage of it. We have had the real reason given to us now. I must protest very strongly about the conduct of the Minister in coming to this House with Regulations which abound in jargon and and which pass all understanding, recommending them to us as necessary to promote youngsters in the gas industry to great places, and finally confessing that it is to reward the "quislings" who served him so well.

Mr. Robens: That is a shocking thing to say.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Poole: I will not detain the House for more than a few moments, but I think that the opinion which some of us hold of the spectacle we have just witnessed ought to go on record. Perhaps "spectacle" is too kind a word. For sheer irresponsibility, we have had the classic example tonight. The right hon. Gentleman who graces the Opposition Front Bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraces."]—has had the audacity to make assertions that the Minister is introducing Regulations to cover up something Which his Department has done, which is entirely illegal and which he seeks to legalise. He told the House that the evidence would be forthcoming. I am at this stage prepared to sit down for the right hon. Gentleman to give to this House that to which I feel it is entitled—the evidence on which he based a charge so foul that he ought either to substantiate it here tonight or have the common decency to withdraw it.

Mr. Bracken: Certainly. The Minister himself confessed that these Regulations are made to look after the big boys in the gas industry. That is exactly what I say, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will remember his performance tonight in helping these "quislings."

Mr. Robens: I want to make it quite clear for the record. What in fact I have said is that these Regulations provide for the promotion of those employed in the industry from the humblest position to that of an area board member without loss of pension rights. When the right hon Gentleman referred to all these people—

Mr. Bracken: Not all.

Mr. Robens: —who were big people in the gas industry—general managers and so on—as "quislings" I thought that was a very bad thing for an hon. Member to say in this House. Nevertheless, the fact is that people who are on area boards from the gas industry are the people who were general managers and others. The point I made was that they could not be regarded as political supporters of the party on this side of the House. I said that in response to something else which the right hon. Gentleman had said.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: I never like to add heat to a friendly Debate such as the one we are having tonight. I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary most carefully, as I always do, and I noted that he did not meet all the points raised in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). The Parliamentary Secretary was not using the ferocity which he used the other day—as he is now engaged in a conversation. I will be silent until he finishes. I am always courteous to the Government; I never interrupt a conversation. Now I will continue. A very powerful speech was made by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I will not deal with any of the matters he touched upon, because I am always moderate.
I understand that the object of the Prayer was to ensure that nobody would slip in under these Regulations because he had been in the industry before. The reply of the Minister was that he was not attempting to let anybody in. What I am still not satisfied about is paragraph 1 (2, c). I agree that under paragraph 1 (2, a) we are dealing with anybody who
was subject to the scheme in question immediately before becoming such a member.
That is clear; and 1 (2, b) is also clear. But I should like to know why paragraph (c) appears at all, if in fact we are not going to slip in persons who would otherwise be outside. Paragraph 1 (2, c) says:
(2) For the purposes of any such pension scheme as aforesaid, the service of any person as a whole-time member of an Area Board or the Gas Council may be treated as if it were service in the employment of the said Board or Council, if that person—
(c) is, by virtue of the Act and any regulations relating to pension rights made by the Minister under section fifty-eight thereof, subject to another pension Scheme, or entitled to rights, in relation to any Area Board or the Gas Council and agrees with the said Board or Council that in lieu thereof he shall become subject to the scheme in question.
I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, but if his reply is right, that we are dealing with nobody who was not in the scheme beforehand, they are covered by (a) and (b) without bringing in (c), which seems to lay open the possibility of persons being worked or slipped in for other purposes than the fact that they were engaged in


this operation before the beginning of the scheme. I only ask for information. It is likely that my right hon. Friend is correct. I know that when we are dealing with fuel and power many surprising things are either said or hidden for the time being by the Front Bench. I want to be satisfied that it is necessary to bring in paragraph (c), instead of leaving it to (a) and (b). Why is it necessary at all, unless there is some object of slipping in a certain number of what are called "big boys"? I will now sit down in the hope that the Minister will enlighten me.

Mr. Robens: The reason for this is fairly simple. Each area board will have its own superannuation scheme. If a man is transferred from one area board to another it is right and proper to transfer his pensionable rights, and paragraph (c) enables us so to do.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think that of all the explanations which the Parliamentary Secretary has given of paragraph (c) that is the most unconvincing. If the hon. Gentleman looks at it he will see, to start with, that he has tried to limit it to transference of a servant from one area board to another. He will see that the Gas Council is mentioned in the same line as the area boards. That, I think, destroyed his arguments. If he will try to construe the paragraph a little more carefully, he will see that the word "rights," which he uses in the third line, cannot apply altogether to pension rights. Paragraph 1 lays down the purposes of the Regulations. It says:
… (which authorises the establishment of pension schemes by Area Boards and the Gas Council) …
As I said earlier, if it is only desired to deal with pension schemes operating within the gas industry before nationalisation—and I would make that point abso-lately clear—the hon. Gentleman has complete power under the regulations of 1949. There is no need to introduce supplementary regulations. I asked him that question. It was one of the first questions which I did ask. The hon. Gentleman has refused to answer it up to now.

Mr. Robens: Regulation No. 744 refers to those people in the employ of the area boards. Members of area boards cannot be in their own employ, and, therefore, one must make a special regulation to deal with the members of area boards.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Parliamentary Secretary is misleading the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] Perhaps hon. Members who shout "Withdraw" so readily will allow me to read from the Regulations. They say:
Any Area Board, or the Gas Council may, for the purpose of paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of Section 58 of the Gas Act"—
That is the paragraph which allows them to take over any pension scheme—
establish and administer any pension scheme which has been approved by the Minister.
There is no such limitation as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested when he interrupted me. Do hon. Members still wish me to withdraw? I do not think so. The fact is that there is every power in the original Regulations for any pension scheme, whether it affects the youngest or the oldest, the richest or the poorest, in the gas industry, to be administered. These Regulations seek to do something new. These words can only, by definition, refer to something outside the Gas Act, and Section 58 thereof and schemes approved under it.

Mr. Robens: The hon. and gallant Member is overlooking the fact that we are not providing pensions for every member of a board. Therefore, in Regulation No. 744, the previous Regulation, the pension scheme relates to those in the employ of the area boards. That would exclude members of area boards. Regulation No. 742 merely brings in members of area boards who have previous service in gas undertakings, and pensionable service at that.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: That was the point which I made when I opened this Debate. I then said that there was nothing in Regulation No. 744 to prevent an area board, or the Gas Council, doing exactly the same as is done in private industry, where a director is entitled to take part in any pension scheme of his firm. The Parliamentary Secretary has not contradicted me, except in the last half-minute.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he looks at the Regulations again he will find that the terms of reference are perfectly clear. The area board or the Gas Council might carry on any scheme which has the approval of the Minister; it does not say, "any person who is under the board, or a member of the board." What we are saying is concerned with para-


graph 1 (2, c) of these Regulations. The Parliamentry Secretary has not tried to answer the main point as to why paragraph 1 (2) covers only those in the gas industry. There is not one word to support it, and he knows that to toe true. As he has said, the first object of this is to cover people who have been taken over from the industry under nationalisation under the terms of Section 58, which cannot be substantiated and for whom special provision has got to be made. He is talking of the "big boys"; the people who are brought in from industry. I shall be only too glad to accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance, if he wishes to intervene.

Mr. Robens: It is impossible for me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to go on reading from these Regulations, and, if I may say so, if hon. Members opposite had read them, they would see that this can only apply to those who were in schemes. It says so quite specifically.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Gentleman says that, but we have a divergence of view, as we sometimes have in this House, as to What words mean. It is always the practice here to explain what a particular phrase means, but the hon. Gentleman has not done that. He has read out the initial phrase, but when he was asked to comment on the words "or entitled to rights," by my hon. Friends he failed completely to comment on them. He ignored them completely.
It is a very slipshod method of treating the House for the hon. Gentleman merely to get up and say, "I am getting bored" or something like that, when he has a perfectly valid case put to him which he cannot answer. It would be far more helpful of him to say, "I cannot answer this, but I will look at it." Here is a phrase on which a certain interpretation has been placed and which is designed, by the Parliamentary Secretary's own admission, to cover the "big boys," and which according to our interpretation—

Mr. George Wigg: On a point of order. How many times is the hon. and gallant Member allowed to repeat himself, Sir?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. and gallant Member is trying to make his point.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If I have made a point too often, Sir, I apologise. If I have wearied the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) there is nobody more sorry than myself.
Surely a regulation should be so closely worded so as to make certain that it covers only those things which the Minister responsible wants to cover and which are justified in the national interest. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are always so concerned with the national interest. Whatever may be the Minister's interpretation it has not been borne out by the arguments which we have had put before us this evening.

Mr. Bracken: It is cruelty to animals.

Question put, and negatived.

COMMUNISM

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

10.46 p.m.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I would ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We have only half an hour to discuss this most important subject and I ask hon. Members opposite to be quiet for that time. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) referred to the "soiled finger of coincidence" and that soiled finger is again prominent today because I am privileged to raise this very serious question after 48 hours of further evidence of the Communist menace.
Having only half an hour in which to discuss the menace of Communism, I would first point out that it is the most momentous and awful menace with which mankind has ever been faced. In Mr. Speaker's office there is a book where we enter our names for an Adjournment Motion. There, an hon. Member is allowed to enter the name of the subject and the Minister he wishes to reply. I put down the Prime Minister's name, and I want to protest most strongly that he is not here tonight to answer this Debate, because even the right hon. Gentleman has not got a clean record. Elaborating his Socialist plan for local governments, the Prime Minister wrote this:
What is required is a regional authority having jurisdiction over a number of existing Local Government areas. … The regional


Authority should be a commissioner. He is not impartial. He is a Socialist … rather like the Russian plan of Commissars.
I would say to him, if he were here, that leopards do not change their spots. The war between good and evil has been going on since the world began. [Interruption.] I appeal to hon. Members to give me a chance. Periodically, it flares up into armed conflict, but the Communists have taken this war on to a spiritual plane. They have got half Europe and half Asia without firing a shot, and it looks, according to the events of the last 48 hours, as if this armed conflict will break out again.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
I say that there is wickedness on our Government Front Bench because no one knows how many fellow-travellers there are among the members of His Majesty's Government. Other countries have outlawed Communism, but His Majesty's Government, with their usual ineptitude, do next to nothing, because they are not masters in their own house.
There are no neutrals in this spiritual war. In a sentence, the war today right throughout the world is Christianity versus Communism and I ask hon. Members opposite and the country, "On which side are you? There are no neutrals." What we want from His Majesty's Government is deeds, not words. This country of ours, the mother of freedom, the home of freedom, is farther down the totalitarian road than anyone realises, and the farther we go down it the harder it will be to turn back. We are asking for, and getting, help from America to fight Communism, and I say that for America to give money to this Government is to subsidise Communism.
My time is limited, and I want to kill two birds with one stone by reading some extracts from the Congressional Record of the Senate of the United States of 1st May, which will show that I am not the only one who is alarmed about the policy of this Government. This is the quotation:
The British Government that was our loyal ally in World War I and World War II has passed into other hands. It is now entirely different. In Great Britain, the ruling Government is a Socialist government. It follows closely the doctrines of Karl Marx. The

Government of the U.S.S.R.—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—also adheres to the teachings of Karl Marx. In event of war with Russia—and God forbid it—the Marxist Government of Britain would decide with whom Britain would cast her lot—with the U.S.S.R. or with the United States. …
The miners' union of Britain is dominated by its secretary, Arthur Horner, who is a Communist. He has announced publicly that if England goes to war with Russia, no coal will be mined in England. …
Mr. President, I have none but feelings of friendship and affection for the British' people"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I make a, further appeal to hon. Members to be quiet. I have a difficult speech to make. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The only argument hon. Members opposite have is gibes and jeers. They will not listen to serious arguments. The quotation continues:
After the British election last February, Prime Minister Attlee appointed John Strachey to head the vital British Ministry of War. It so happens that Mr. Strachey has quite a record as a Communist writer and Communist worker. He has written numerous books on the virtues of Soviet socialism, as he calls it. He once wrote, 'the coming of Communism can alone render our problems soluble.'
Think of that. The man who now heads the British Ministry of War has said, 'The coming of Communism can alone render our problems soluble.'
The final quotation is this:
Certainly Mr. Attlee, the Prime Minister, could not have been unfamiliar"—

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir, to make libellous statements about hon. Members in this House? May I get your Ruling on that?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): No libellous statement has been made so far as I have heard.

Mr. George Wigg: Further to that point of order. May I take it, Sir, that it will be in order later, if we are fortunate enough to catch your eye, to make similar damaging statements about the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will listen carefully.

Sir W. Smithers: I am quoting from the Congressional Record of the United States. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whose speech?"] It was by Senator Kem. The quotation goes on:


Certainly Mr. Attlee, the Prime Minister, could not have been unfamiliar with the reputation and activities of Mr. Strachey. I do not agree, I cannot agree, that the appointment of Mr. Strachey can be properly laid to stupidity. I believe it is a key move in a carefully calculated plan of Communist forces to dominate the world. …
There must be no compromise with Communism. But the British Socialist Government has compromised with Communism.
All that the Government has done, as far as I know, is to carry out a mean little purge of civil servants. If there is to be a purge of civil servants, they must be judged by their past record—and there are several Ministers of the Crown who, if they were civil servants, could not pass that test. I do not know how many fellow-travellers there are in His Majesty's Government but the Chancellor of the Exchequer once wrote:
The Socialist Government's first step will be to call Parliament together at the earliest moment, and place before it an Emergency Powers Bill to be passed through all its stages on the first day. This Bill will be wide enough in its terms to allow all that will be immediately necessary to be done by Ministerial orders. These orders must be incapable of challenge in the Courts. … At the present time it is left to the Courts to decide whether these (Ministerial) orders are within the powers given by Parliament. … This power must be taken from the Courts.
In the General Election there was a Conservative publication which said this:
If you do not vote Right this time you may never vote again.
A Conservative accepted a Labour challenge to this view, when Mr. W. A. Fearnley-Whittingstall, K.C., said:
Sir Stafford Cripps has written that 'unless during the first five years so great a degree of change has been accomplished as to deprive the capitalists of power, it is unlikely that the Socialist Party will be able to maintain its position of control without adopting some means of prolonging Parliament without an election.
The strongest force in human nature is the religious force. Left-Wing Governments—even that in Russia—have found it impossible to carry on their policies successfully without roping in the religious. And yet our Chancellor of the Exchequer preaches in St. Paul's Cathedral on the eve of the election. It was disgraceful that the Church authorities should have allowed him to do that.

Mr. Shurmer: What about the hon. Member playing the organ?

Sir W. Smithers: The B.B.C. is riddled with Communism, and if hon. Members and the public generally want particulars of that, will they please write to the Listeners' Association, 71, Victoria Street, Kensington?
There is no difference in principle, in my opinion, between the policies of Hitler and Stalin and of this Government. They want power at any price. As Lord Acton once said, "All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." They will say or do anything to keep in power—and the Communist influence is very strong in the present Government. The Minister of Town and Country Planning did a disgraceful thing which caused him to leave the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer; if he had done that in ordinary business circles he would have been hounded out—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member that he must not cast reflections on an hon. Member unless he puts down a substantive Motion to that effect.

Sir W. Smithers: I only ask the House to note this—that the Minister of Town and Country Planning is now a member of the Cabinet: the recent Minister of Town and Country Planning was not a member of the Cabinet. What blackmail powers does the Minister of Town and Country Planning have over the Prime Minister?

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to use words describing the actions of the Minister of Town and Country Planning or any member of the Government as "blackmail"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman said, "Blackmail powers"; I was listening very carefully.

Sir W. Smithers: I believe that today there has been a Debate in another place on similar lines to the one I am initiating now. In the National Provincial Bank's review for May there is a remarkable article by Professor Hodder. It tells how industries have been nationalised and, in four or five tables at the end of the article, he shows how the Government has obtained a complete strangehold—if they like to use it—over all the economic activities of our country. He says that the apparatus of complete despotism is


in existence and has been modified only because of the Government's reduced majority.
I have been able to touch on only a few of the headlines, and I wish I had time to deal with more. I want to say, in conclusion, that I have many friends in the Socialist Party who sincerely believe in the philosophy of Socialism—but in my opinion they are barking up the wrong tree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Bow-wow!"] They will have to learn their lesson by bitter experience, because the philosophy of Socialism must end in Communist dictatorship, especially in Great Britain, which is not, and cannot become, self-supporting.
When Marshall Aid and the sellers' market end, when we get full German and Japanese competition, we shall have to export at world competitive prices or starve, and our only hope is to do away with all the Communist controls which now govern the country, and return to free enterprise, allowing men of experience and ability to use the talents God has given them. To those Socialists who may be using office to set up a Communist dictatorship, I quote some words used 2,000 years ago which are as true today as they were when they were uttered:
You hypocrites, you generation of vipers, who shall deliver you from the damnation of hell?
I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to the country, "Beware, the false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing."

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: It may be in order for the hon. Gentleman to quote the Gospels, but I should have thought it came as near to blasphemy as anything. There is a view held on this side of the House that the hon. Gentleman is an amiable idiot. I dissent from that view. I do not think he is amiable.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is out of order for one hon. Gentleman to say that another hon. Gentleman is an idiot. That was the inference I drew.

Mr. Wigg: In that case I withdraw, Sir, although I thought I said it was a view held by my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I will substitute the statement that I think that the view is that he

is amiable but irresponsible. I dissent from that view because I do not think that he is amiable. I think that he is vicious and unkind.
I have searched the hon. Gentleman's speeches over a period of 10 years, and I have failed to find that he has sponsored any decent human cause. He now has a bee in his bonnet about Communism. In 1936 the bee in his bonnet was expenditure in South Wales. He put down Question after Question deploring the cost of Public Assistance for miners; he criticised the cost of education. Between the odd occasions when he put down Questions—for he spoke remarkably few times in those days—I presume he was composing further masterpieces such as "On, Stanley, On" to the tune of "Yes, we have no bananas." In the intervening years the hon. Gentleman swung from the anti-South Wales bee in his bonnet—

Sir W. Smithers: I have tried my best to restrain Government expenditure because I knew we cannot afford it. If extravagant expenditure continues, we shall not merely have a South Wales and a Jarrow. The whole country will be a Jarrow.

Mr. Wigg: My purpose is to show the hon. Gentleman as an irresponsible man with a beehive on his head. At the moment it is anti-Communist.
I can prove from the hon. Gentleman's speeches that the bee in his bonnet for two or three years was that the miners of South Wales were getting too much Public Assistance. Next it was too much on local expenditure. He charged us on this side with being on a par with Hitler. What a charge to come from an hon. Gentleman on the Conservative benches. Did he ever raise his voice against the menace of Nazism or Fascism in Hitler's days?
In the first question put down by the hon. Gentleman after the outbreak of war he asked the Minister of Health whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that evacuated children were suffering from various diseases, including whooping cough, impetigo, scarlet fever, and verminous heads. That was his attitude towards the grave social consequences disclosed at that time. The hon. Member finished by quoting the Scriptures. May I quote them back, and, I hope, with a little more reverence? What is wrong with the hon. Gentleman is not that he


is worried about Communism, not that he really cares about the level of expenditure in South Wales, or anywhere else. He has another god. It is the love of money. If he will turn to First Timothy, chapter 6, verse 10, he will read:
For the love of money is the root of all evil.
If the hon. Member would go back and read those words, and have them inscribed above his bed, perhaps he would become a better Member of this House.

Sir W. Smithers: I deny the hon. Gentleman's charge absolutely.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I am reluctant, as a Member who has been in Parliament a considerably shorter time than the hon. Gentleman, to instruct him about our practice here, but the fact is that a junior Minister nearly always takes the Adjournment, and from time to time when hon. Members put down Adjournment Motions directed to the Prime Minister he courteously, as in this case, transfers them to a junior Minister. The hon. Gentleman complained so much that the Prime Minister was not answering that I should like to point out that only on two occasions in the last five years has the Prime Minister replied to an Adjournment Debate: to one arising directly out of a statement by him, and to one when the Leader of the Opposition informed him that he was to speak. If the hon. Gentleman becomes Leader of the Opposition I can assure him that when he raises a matter on the Adjournment the Prime Minister will be here.
He was good enough to give me some idea of what he was going to say, and that he was going to attack certain Members of the Government. But I had no idea that he was going to devote so large a proportion of his time to attacking members of the Government, and so small a proportion to constructive suggestions of what is to be done to meet the menace of Communism. As to the attacks on Ministers, I do not think the hon. Gentleman has taken sufficiently seriously the reply the Prime Minister gave to his Question on 14th March. He asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister
what steps he takes, before inviting any hon. Member to accept ministerial office, to ascertain, as in the case of other servants of

the Crown, that they are reliable persons from a security point of view.
The Prime Minister replied:
I cannot accept the implications in the hon. Member's Question. In any case, I would remind him that it is established constitutional practice that the Prime Minister of the day is solely responsible for recommending ministerial appointments to His Majesty, and it is not customary for him to answer Questions on these matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 37.]
As to the hon. Member's general point about security, I would refer him to the Lord Chancellor's speech in another place on 29th March which covered that topic. I said I was surprised the hon. Member had devoted so much of his time to his personal attacks. Perhaps I should not really have been surprised because we who have had the advantage of being with him in this House know that his great activity is not in the battle for such things as how best to raise the standard of living for men and women throughout the world, how best to bring peace and security to the world by international political and military agreement, how best to convince the world that parliamentary democracy and political and religious and racial toleration are very great ideals. Rather, instead, his great activity in this House has been at Question time and, out of character with his many kind actions to many people outside the House, has been chiefly in vilification, hatred and intolerance and generally displaying marked totalitarian tendencies.

Sir W. Smithers: How funny!

Mr. de Freitas: For instance, the first two Questions put down by the hon. Gentleman in this Parliament—at least the first two I remember—illustrate this. In the first he was rebuked by Mr. Speaker for reflecting on the patriotism of hon. Members, and in the second, again repeated tonight, was his desire that we should outlaw the Communist Party. Surely it is a very dangerous step, a very dangerous first surrender of democracy, to do such a thing. The hon. Member spoke of vipers and quoted Biblical texts. I have not exactly a Biblical quotation, but surely to outlaw the Communist Party is really to call in Beelzebub to cast out Satan. And does the hon. Member really think it would help us to outlaw the Communist Party. Would not the Communist Party be far more dangerous as an underground movement?
HANSARD records other interventions and Questions by the hon. Member against free speech and against the freedom of the Press. His hatred of Communism is so great that he is prepared to take on many of the characteristics of totalitarianism in order to defeat it. I say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that if we can possibly avoid it, we are determined not to deal with the evil of Communism by adopting illiberal methods entirely opposed to our traditions.
It is right that we should get this Debate into perspective. The hon. Member is really almost a party of one in this House. He is not taken seriously in this House or in the country, but on an occasion like this we should not rejoice too much in that fact.

Sir W. Smithers: My constituents doubled my majority last time.

Mr. de Freitas: Yes, but there was redistribution to help that.
On this occasion let us not rejoice too much in the fact that the hon. Member is not taken seriously, because there is always the proverb, "Wolf, wolf." One day there may arise in this House an hon. Member who is justified in his accusations against his colleagues in this House or against the Government of the day, and he may be regarded wrongly by the House and the country as merely another hon. Member in the tradition of the hon. Member for Orpington.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Bing: When the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) was suggesting that we should outlaw Communism, I did not know whether he was proposing legislation. Therefore, I am in some doubt as to

whether I should suggest to my hon. Friend that we should outlaw foolishness. If you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, feel that that would be suggesting legislation, may I suggest, as an administrative measure, that we should tighten up the regulations for certification?
This is a question which I think worth while asking. Is the conduct of the hon. Member in the national interest? I do not know if I have time to read the whole of the letter which the hon. Gentleman saw fit to write, on a most critical subject of national interest, to the American Press. Does the hon. Gentleman remember what he wrote to the "Wall Street Journal" at a time when he had a moment of authority, when he could throw the pound sterling off its balance? He said:
To send dollars to the British Government is to subsidise Communism.
That is the sort of insanity in which the hon. Gentleman thought fit to indulge. That is the sort of feeling against which I think the State ought to take executive measures to protect itself. During the war it was necessary to send into protective custody the stable-mate of the hon. Gentleman—Captain Ramsay. Perhaps in the present circumstances, when we are in equal difficulties, one might also consider a similar measure in regard to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington. When one considers the complete untruths—and I say that advisedly—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a Quarter past Eleven o'Clock.